It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Atheist Arrogant

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Well, Genesis chapter 1 is also entirely incorrect. It has a geocentric cosmology, contains the creation of fruit-bearing trees before the creation of the sun and the moon, puts the creation of birds before the creation of land animals, etc.

It's a very wrong chapter. Incredibly so.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I was actually referring to the rest of my post rather than the external sources.


I have to ask why you included it then?


To note that other people have a disagreement with the fellow. And that the claims aren't backed by evidence. That was the main thrust of that post and the post I made that you've just responded to.



I see so often a tactic in this origins debate to just Google search for some contradictory piece of evidence and paste it as a counter-point.


Soooo...how is that different from what you're doing?



Kinda why I refuse to go into the O&C forum.


That and you're a creationist....creationists tend to find it too toasty.



Quite often an argument will be made, then others will use a Google counter-argument that is chock-full of logical fallacies,


Pot
Kettle
Black

The article you provided is full of logical fallacies. Now, if you'll go to O&C I'll point that out, but that is not the topic of this thread.



then the poster's supporters will gather like a wild pack of dogs, high-five each other, and award stars for an absurd counter-argument.


Please, provide evidence of this. Hell, I see it being done by creationists all the time, but rarely (if ever) by non-creationists.

Now, if you're talking about creationists doing this with each other, I'll agree. They never provide anything that is evidence based or works at all.



I don't have the patience or time to engage in that circus.


Eh, it takes a lot. That's why I dropped US political madness, I found it so inane and based in pure emotional response that I had to decide between either engaging in discussion on O&C or on that forum...I chose O&C because there's at least some discussion of facts.



I see you as reasonable, therefore i prefer to discuss this topic with you privately instead of in public where a majority of people have no clue what constitutes a sound logical argument or counter-argument.


No offense, but this would include yourself. Not that you're not a fairly reasonable individual (my position is that few individuals are more than 'fairly reasonable' but that is due to remaining teenage misanthropy that I haven't yet shaken out of my system), but you've yet to put forth any sort of sound argument for a creationist position when you've tried. With regard to philosophical and theological debate you're definitely great with the formulation of arguments, but you don't seem to have the subtle difference in approach required for scientific debate.

Just an honest criticism, not a defamatory comment. You definitely have the capacity, you just don't seem to demonstrate the knack just yet.

Now, I don't do discussions in private u2u form because I have a limited amount of time and it would become ridiculous with all the people who would prefer to have a private discussion rather than a public one. It also allows for the discussion to be public, which lets a lot more people take part, especially those who take part passively. More people read those threads than partake in the discussion and those are the people who I post for.




Now, I unfortunately lack access to a copy of the book, and it would be inanely ridiculous of anyone to ask that I refute a whole book. Nonetheless, this book still relies on the false premise that the sun is shrinking, for which the evidence is weak.


I disagree completely. But, would you like to provide me with your address in a U2U and I'll mail you a signed copy of the book at my expense?


That is a genuinely kind offer, but it would probably cost you quite a bit. I'm living in Malta and it would end up probably costing you more to ship it here than for me to pick up the book. I'll pick it up myself.

But again, thank you for the offer.

Unfortunately, I have an entire boatload of assignments to do in the coming month and a half...and then I have another full semester of University, visits to Universities to look into my graduate studies, and then second semester assignments.

However, I will try to make a thread relating to the book in summer. Though it would be appreciated if you u2u'd me the ISBN for the book.




posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The sun is according to your scientific sources approximately 4.57 billions years old. Not even your science is 100% accurate. Science have no idea or can't agree on when grass and plants started to appear. And they never will.

So i dont know how you can claim anything at all.


Your claims are just as accurate as your idea of creation. You have no clue, because your resources have no specific scientific data to make any scientific claims.

Question:

-When exactly did the sun appear?

- When exactly did plants appear according to your science? 2.0, 2.4, 3 or 4 billion years ago. Which one did you choose as your accuracy?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The sun is according to your scientific sources approximately 4.57 billions years old. Not even your science is 100% accurate.


Approximately give or take a single digit percentage margin of error. And guess what, it admits this and provides workable answers. The problem is that there will always be a margin of error in scientific calculations, and science acknowledges.

But guess what! That not 100% accurate science? It's what makes your computer work. So science works.



Science have no idea or can't agree on when grass and plants started to appear.


Grammar...please....save it.

Anyway, this statement is utterly false. We know that we've had land plants for about 475 million years. We know that the sun is a hell of a lot older than that.

Even if we weren't specifically sure when land plants first evolved, we'd have an idea of when life first formed, which was definitely well after the sun formed.

Hell, even if we weren't specifically sure of when the first life formed, we'd have an idea of when the Earth formed, and that would most definitely


And they never will.


As they said about heavier than air aircraft, space travel, mathematically deriving the reason for elliptical orbits and the motion of moons (Newton thought it would be impossible...but he was wrong!)...etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Whenever someone says science cannot do something, it always does.



So i dont know how you can claim anything at all.


Because science works female dogs!



Your claims are just as accurate as your idea of creation.


Yay, more ignorant claims!

I know the story of creation. I've poured over it many times in many different versions, including the original Hebrew. Please show me how my idea of creation is inaccurate if I am in fact mistaken.



You have no clue, because your resources have no specific scientific data to make any scientific claims.


...what? Int bis serjeta...are you serious?

We do have specific data. We have measurements based on radiometric dating (which is definitely accurate, unless you think atomic clocks are inaccurate)! We have all sorts of raw data!

To claim that I lack any sort of specific scientific data to make any claims is just preposterous.



Question:

-When exactly did the sun appear?


I'm not sure, but it seems to be about 4.75 billion years ago when the hydrogen cloud of this solar system first collapsed.



- When exactly did plants appear according to your science? 2.0, 2.4, 3 or 4 billion years ago. Which one did you choose as your accuracy?


Well, land plants appeared about 475 million years ago. However, photosynthesis appeared approximately 3 billion years ago. I base this upon the preponderance of evidence in the scientific community. I take it that the same process that brings us awesome things like the transistor and telecommunications is going to work for determining these things...
Oh, and I've actually read a few scientific papers on the issue (BORRRRRING...seriously, they need to give people in science course a basic rundown of writing techniques)...


Anyway, the basic premise seems to be that because science isn't dead on, bullseye accurate it's not accurate at all?

Wow, that's the most moronic thing I've heard from a creationist in...wait, I heard that thing about dinosaurs breathing really fast and then their noses caught fire, nevermind.

So, because science is never 100% spot on and has some margin of error...the sun could have been created after plants. That is an incredibly illogical statement. The fact is that the statement that the Sun could have been created after the Earth is impossible enough in the first place. The Genesis account goes on to the further point that the Sun was then placed in the firmament around the Earth.

Science and basic logic have both been failed in the post I have replied to.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! (Sry for being arrogant.)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


When you argue against creation. You use precision. But when you talk about science precision is not all that important?

If land plants are said to be found 4.75 billion years ago. And the sun appeared 4.57 billion years ago. I have to ask. Is that a typing error made by you. Or a typing error made by Wiki. Because you also state that the sun is a Hell of a lot older than 4.57 billion years?

But wiki. does say that the sun appeared 4.57 billion yeas ago.

But any way, you admitted by your own dates that plans grew before the sun appeared.

I also have to ask. What scientific facts do you have that the Hydrogen collapsed and formed the sun?

What made the hydrogen collapse? Is there a fact involved or a hypothesis theory involved?






edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


When you argue against creation. You use precision. But when you talk about science precision is not all that important?


It is, which is why scientific studies have margins of error. If there are two conflicting claims that are scientific and one has a 10% margin of error while the other has a more precise 0.01% margin of error...guess which one the scientists accept.

Precision is important, exactness is not.

Now, with regard to creation...I just say that there is absolutely nothing to support it.



If land plants are said to be found 4.75 billion years ago. And the sun appeared 4.57 billion years ago. I have to ask. Is that a typing error made by you. Or a typing error made by Wiki. Because you also state that the sun is a Hell of a lot older than 4.57 billion years?


I just said that the Sun is approximately 4.57 billion years old, while plants are about
This is what I said about plants:


Anyway, this statement is utterly false. We know that we've had land plants for about 475 million years. We know that the sun is a hell of a lot older than that.


475 million years ago = 0.475 billion years.



But wiki. does say that the sun appeared 4.57 billion yeas ago.


Yes, I made a mistake in typing the age of the sun

From me:

I'm not sure, but it seems to be about 4.75 billion years ago when the hydrogen cloud of this solar system first collapsed.


I switched the 7 and the 5



But any way, you admitted by your own dates that plans grew before the sun appeared.


No, I didn't. Apparently you are either unaware of the difference between 'billion' and 'million'. 1 billion = 1000 million. I said that land plants appeared 475 million years ago, though photosynthesis seems to have first occurred 3 billion years ago.

I didn't say that plants grew before the sun appeared, you either misread me or are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.



I also have to ask. What scientific facts do you have that the Hydrogen collapsed and formed the sun?


Oh my sweet baby Cthulu are you seriously asking that?

Hydrogen clouds collapsing is the only possible way to form a star

Evidence can be found in the entirety of the scientific observation of star formation.



What made the hydrogen collapse? Is there a fact involved or a hypothesis theory involved?


Gravity.

Read/url]
[url=http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/stellarevolution_formation.html]Up

On
Star
Formation
before making further silly comments.

 


In conclusion, the main thrust of your post was either not understanding what I wrote when I said "475 million" or deliberately misrepresenting my point. I have not edited that post, you can see that from looking at the bottom. I even made a formatting mistake so a giant chunk of it is accidentally in bold...so clearly unedited.

Do you now understand what I meant?

Oh, and why do people consistently drop my points?

To actually conclude this I'll bring up a point I made before, so this quote is from me:


Anyway, this statement is utterly false. We know that we've had land plants for about 475 million years. We know that the sun is a hell of a lot older than that.

Even if we weren't specifically sure when land plants first evolved, we'd have an idea of when life first formed, which was definitely well after the sun formed.

Hell, even if we weren't specifically sure of when the first life formed, we'd have an idea of when the Earth formed, and that would most definitely (have an idea that it was after the Sun formed)


(emphasis added, italics indicate an addition to the material)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


To note that other people have a disagreement with the fellow. And that the claims aren't backed by evidence. That was the main thrust of that post and the post I made that you've just responded to.


That's why I said it was an Ad Hominem link against what Dr. Lisle had to say on the subject. One link showed ignorance to his book, the professor displayed clearly that he barely read two paragraphs of the first chapter. Then takes two quotes from the first chapter that Dr. Lisle NEVER authored.

The second link is purely arbitrary conjecture. neither link discussed Dr. Lisle's arguments, but attacked him personally and professionally.


Soooo...how is that different from what you're doing?


I hope you're kidding. I don't need to "Google" arguments. I have seen Dr. Lisle's lectures in person, and have several of his books and DVDs. I actually make an argument from what the man said, both hearing the arguments in person and from reading them in his books.



That and you're a creationist....creationists tend to find it too toasty.


Not at all, the problem with that forum is the Evolutionists and the Creationists are arguing over "evidence", when both sides will look at the same thing and arrive at two completely different conclusions based upon their different worldviews. It's a never-ending argument circle/circus. I prefer to argue in this forum and attack the secular/humanist worldview that is behind Evolution.

Some may find it "toasty", I prefer to view it as trying to heard cats covered in Vaseline.



Pot
Kettle
Black

The article you provided is full of logical fallacies. Now, if you'll go to O&C I'll point that out, but that is not the topic of this thread.


Ridiculous.



Please, provide evidence of this. Hell, I see it being done by creationists all the time, but rarely (if ever) by non-creationists.


Case in point: The last thread I made about Dr. Kent Hovind's video about dinosaurs. The Evolutionists posted numerous things attacking Dr. Hovind as a person, his degree, and hardly anyone presented counter-arguments to what Dr. Hovind presented in the video. That's a classic "Ad Hominem" attack. Then all the Evolutionists gave each other numerous stars for their Ad Hom posts, which were completely fallacious to begin with.

The absurd ones even complained Dr. Hovind "wasn't a real scientist". WELL DUUUH! His Ph.D is in EDUCATION. He's a teacher, not a scientist. He never presents HIS work, but presents the works of other scientists. What teachers do.


Now, if you're talking about creationists doing this with each other, I'll agree. They never provide anything that is evidence based or works at all.


I completely disagree.



Eh, it takes a lot. That's why I dropped US political madness, I found it so inane and based in pure emotional response that I had to decide between either engaging in discussion on O&C or on that forum...I chose O&C because there's at least some discussion of facts.


i agree with you there, I stopped entering the Politics forums myself.



No offense, but this would include yourself.


I do take that personal to a degree. What pains me the most in forums is spending the majority of the time pointing out false illogical arguments and trying to get posters to re-post an argument that is sound logically. One of my favorite subjects is debate and sadly, most posters on forums have never taken a class on debate and logical reasoning.


Not that you're not a fairly reasonable individual (my position is that few individuals are more than 'fairly reasonable' but that is due to remaining teenage misanthropy that I haven't yet shaken out of my system), but you've yet to put forth any sort of sound argument for a creationist position when you've tried.


I disagree, just because the argument has not persuaded you doesn't mean it was not a sound argument. oftentimes an argument will be strong and sound and if the audience is not ready to let that argument challenge their worldview it will basically fall on deaf ears. If your standard for "good" means it has to persuade then that's out of my control.


With regard to philosophical and theological debate you're definitely great with the formulation of arguments, but you don't seem to have the subtle difference in approach required for scientific debate.


I appreciate that, however, I feel that my reasoning is sound across the board and the battle is not evidence vs evidence, but worldview vs worldview. You would look at the Geologic column and see evidence of millions of years of Evolution and I look at the same evidence and see a giant flood 4,000 years ago that deposited heavier materials by way of Hydrological Sorting.


Now, I don't do discussions in private u2u form because I have a limited amount of time and it would become ridiculous with all the people who would prefer to have a private discussion rather than a public one.


And that's fine, we can have our public discussions in this forum where I prefer to address our different worldviews. just know why I refuse to go into the Origins forums. To me it's a circus arguing the wrong thing: Evidence.


It also allows for the discussion to be public, which lets a lot more people take part, especially those who take part passively. More people read those threads than partake in the discussion and those are the people who I post for.


I share the same sentiments. I've always said the number of "views" is always about 5 times greater than the number of "posts" in any given thread/forum.



That is a genuinely kind offer, but it would probably cost you quite a bit. I'm living in Malta and it would end up probably costing you more to ship it here than for me to pick up the book. I'll pick it up myself.


it doesn't hurt me at all, my funds are quite substantial. Plus, it would be a nice gesture to provide you with an author-signed copy.


Unfortunately, I have an entire boatload of assignments to do in the coming month and a half...and then I have another full semester of University, visits to Universities to look into my graduate studies, and then second semester assignments.


I don't have your life, and I can understand you are busy. I wan't suggesting you read/respond immediately, just wanted you to do something your posters in the links failed to do..

read the book.


However, I will try to make a thread relating to the book in summer. Though it would be appreciated if you u2u'd me the ISBN for the book.


When that happens send me the link and I will join that discussion.
edit on 26-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: My typing skills are not as evolved as others, sorry.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I can understand, why solipsistic attitudes are so popular amongst fanatics.

You can fabricate your own epistemology, methodology and 'facts', and start from the 'condition' that this whole system is disproved. Otherwise you've 'won' and can safely ignore feedback on your nonsense.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
I can understand, why solipsistic attitudes are so popular amongst fanatics.

You can fabricate your own epistemology, methodology and 'facts', and start from the 'condition' that this whole system is disproved. Otherwise you've 'won' and can safely ignore feedback on your nonsense.


Ahh yes, my own personal troll right on cue. It's been a few weeks since you last followed me into a thread, did you just get your internet hooked back up again?

No one takes you seriously here because your posts are filled to the brim with arbitrariness. Since it's blatantly obvious that you are utterly clueless, in logical reasoning, NO ONE is permitted to be arbitrary. That is, you cannot simply assert a claim that has no justification behind it and expect others to accept your claim. The most common form, (which you've displayed above), is called "mere opinion". This is where a person asserts his or her opinion without any justification and thinks that this settles the matter being discussed.

Now, go back under the bridge.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

The above is your opinion, right?
Nothing arbitrary about it?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


If you believe so look up the term arbitrary



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Re NOTurTypical

Disregarding the semantic piethrowing in your post, it examplifies a point, I have tried to turn attention to for a long time: A common communication basis. If there is to be a meaning with forum-participation (except as an outlet for propagandistic oration), clashing ideologies, worldviews, methodologies etc. must have some generally accepted way of evaluating evidence, facts or 'tools'.

With science, logic, reasoning new players have arrived at the field, where religion earlier had an authority monopoly, and that means, that a deeper 'digging' is necessary.

As for a closed doctrinal system, a 'bubble', it means a scrutiny of its doctrines, so the system will be able to relate to the new information presented by science (even if the doctrines are supposed to be of divine or other ultimate origin).

As for science it means a constant updating of its working-parameters (a process already taking place) according to new data.

In other words epistemology. And epistemology in itself must also be flexible enough to adapt.

(A very good example is the transition from classical science to quantum physics. Not only did new, and sometimes revolutionary, information turn up. It also led to revised worldviews in circles using science, and even more drastically to the emergence of a special subject called 'philosophy of science'.)

Doctrinalists with rigid 'absolute' doctrines will eventually meet with existence outside their 'bubbles', and have their doctrines challenged, and sometimes disproved beyond doubt.

Consequently can fixed doctrines either be changed, or alternatively be 'defended' by irrelevant methods such as deflection, dirt-throwing, rhetoric, semantic twists and all the other methods for trying to disarm inconvenient opposition.

From various motives doctrinal dealers of self-appointed absolutes often choose the later method. The outcome is inevitably, that this method will backfire, and demonstrate its users as monomaniacal fanatics.

(PS. To forestall semantic shufflings: The manifestations called 'giving testimony', 'sharing', 'offering information', 'manifesting christian 'love' (when not asked for) are after a certain point only sermons or preaching, and is not included in my above considerations. For me such is just pushing, and the answer is counter-pushing).

As this thread has 'arrogance' as part of the topic, I'll relate to it by stating my own opinion. For me arrogance is an 'I'm right, because I'm right' bubble, without any will for introspection or flexibility.


edit on 28-12-2010 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


To note that other people have a disagreement with the fellow. And that the claims aren't backed by evidence. That was the main thrust of that post and the post I made that you've just responded to.


That's why I said it was an Ad Hominem link against what Dr. Lisle had to say on the subject.


No, an Ad Hominem attack would be to call him a poop head. To call his work unsupported and to point out that others believe it to be so....that's not an ad hominem attack.



One link showed ignorance to his book, the professor displayed clearly that he barely read two paragraphs of the first chapter. Then takes two quotes from the first chapter that Dr. Lisle NEVER authored.


Scroll to the rnd of Page 18 and read through page 19 for one of those quotes

The other quote is in reference to a speaker series entry on the blog of Answers in Genesis, which can be found here and it doesn't seem clear whether or not he did or did not write the work written above. No author seems to be provided. At best PZ Meyers was confused by Answers in Genesis and their odd lack of attributions in writings. Also, note that I called him "PZ Meyers" instead of "Dr. Meyers". PZ has published far more work than Lisle, has published primarily academic works, and is far more respected for his evidence based works. He's also a nice guy. Not that Lisle isn't, I just don't know much about his personality.



The second link is purely arbitrary conjecture. neither link discussed Dr. Lisle's arguments, but attacked him personally and professionally.


I'm sorry, where's the personal attacks? The professional ones are based on the merits of his work, it even goes far enough to complement him for having actual science credentials. Please demonstrate in the article where the attacks are.

It's also an article that contains 10 citations, which you clearly didn't see. If you had, you would have realized I was pulling my punches by notproviding this source. But anyway, it should be easy enough for me to refute anything he says.




Soooo...how is that different from what you're doing?


I hope you're kidding. I don't need to "Google" arguments. I have seen Dr. Lisle's lectures in person, and have several of his books and DVDs. I actually make an argument from what the man said, both hearing the arguments in person and from reading them in his books.


I didn't Google any arguments. Remembering that Phyrangula mentioned the dude isn't Googling. Of course, now you're saying I'm arguing from an uninformed position, yet you have routinely demonstrated an ignorance of physics, chemistry, biology, and evolution most specifically in your discussions to me. Pot kettle etc.

I don't doubt that you own several books and DVDs all from the same source. And I don't doubt that it's a creationist source that doesn't publish his supposedly paradigm changing scientific papers in the appropriate journals and instead publishes them in an upstart creationist journal that doesn't have any proper protocols in place.





That and you're a creationist....creationists tend to find it too toasty.


Not at all, the problem with that forum is the Evolutionists and the Creationists are arguing over "evidence", when both sides will look at the same thing and arrive at two completely different conclusions based upon their different worldviews. It's a never-ending argument circle/circus. I prefer to argue in this forum and attack the secular/humanist worldview that is behind Evolution.


Or as Ken Ham says, it doesn't matter what the evidence says, you just have to put your Bible glasses on. The problem is that there isn't any evidence for creation that fits in with any definition of the word 'evidence' in a scientific context, not one piece. All 'evidence' that relates to getting a different conclusion isn't because the worldview of the people on the evolution side is in play, it's because the creationists care for their worldview rather than for the facts of the matter. It's an inconsistent, thoroughly debunked, and frankly fraudulent idea. I say fraudulent because many of those who support both old and young earth creationism have been exposed as charlatans, liars, and frauds. And some of them, like Ken Ham, keep on doing it.

If what you were saying were true, then you could demonstrate it by putting forth a single piece of evidence that can be shown to be seen differently by a creationist and a person that accepts science.



Some may find it "toasty", I prefer to view it as trying to heard cats covered in Vaseline.


No, that's just what people from Answers in Genesis want you to believe. The issue here is trying to get the evidence through to people, like yourself, you have been taught such ignorant things like 'it's a matter of world view'.





Pot
Kettle
Black

The article you provided is full of logical fallacies. Now, if you'll go to O&C I'll point that out, but that is not the topic of this thread.


Ridiculous.


I'm giving you an invitation to discuss it in the appropriate sub-forum and I'm saying that we are brazenly off topic and I wouldn't want to drag this off of the sub-forum topic. How is that ridiculous? I'm merely saying I'll discuss the topic openly with you in the appropriate place. Your one word statement in response to me saying "here, we can talk about it over in the place where we're supposed to discuss this stuff" is more ridiculous than what I said.





Please, provide evidence of this. Hell, I see it being done by creationists all the time, but rarely (if ever) by non-creationists.


Case in point: The last thread I made about Dr. Kent Hovind's video about dinosaurs.


Kent Hovind is not a PhD. He has a non-accredited degree. You will not besmirch the name of individuals who have received a PhD legitimately, like Dr Jason Lisle (yes, I'm using your own guy as an example) in an effort to prop up his insane ramblings. The man has been exposed to be wrong in his videos repeatedly by both users on YouTube and anyone with a high school education in science who pays attention to it.

I mean, for Cthulu's sake (I use Cthulu because of the insanity at hand in those videos), he makes claims about atmospheric pressure being 'doubled' by a water or ice canopy above the Earth, yet he doesn't bother doing the calculations to show that it would have atmospheric increased pressure to the point where most life wouldn't have survived.

Anyway, he's a ridiculous individual, so he's bound to attract that sort of thing. Now, I'll ressurect that thread and demonstrate how he's wrong on so many points.



The Evolutionists posted numerous things attacking Dr. Hovind as a person, his degree, and hardly anyone presented counter-arguments to what Dr. Hovind presented in the video.


Well, it's hard to argue with a guy who has been shown to lie repeatedly and attack people for using his admittedly non-copyrighted material in a fashion appropriate with the material's status, evaded taxes, and lied to many, many people about the facts of the matter.

Hell, the guy can't even define evolution, why am I supposed to address his arguments about dinosaurs?

Also, you keep using the term 'evolutionists', which is not an appropriate term. Evolution is a scientific theory regarding biodiversity, more precisely defined as the variation in allele frequency over successive generations, not a belief system.



That's a classic "Ad Hominem" attack. Then all the Evolutionists gave each other numerous stars for their Ad Hom posts, which were completely fallacious to begin with.


No, they aren't fallacious. You can make a number of very valid ad hominem attacks on Mr Hovind. He masquerades as a scientist, without pointing out that he has a diploma-mill doctorate in Bible studies. His dissertation is riddled with errors, even grammatical ones. He evaded taxes and is currently imprisoned for it. His videos are poorly made (I'm sorry, but it's my field of study, I have to point it out). He claims to have taught science for years without demonstrating any knowledge of it. He put out a bogus set of videos, has been corrected on their many scientific errors repeatedly (basic, basic stuff, not 'you're a creationist therefore you're wrong stuff), and hasn't changed them.



The absurd ones even complained Dr. Hovind "wasn't a real scientist". WELL DUUUH! His Ph.D is in EDUCATION.


Religious education. And it's a poor dissertation for it. He also paid $25 a month at a diploma mill for it, so it's not a particularly proper PhD. I find it demeaning to those who actually worked for the real thing, including Jason Lisle, to call this man a PhD.



He's a teacher, not a scientist. He never presents HIS work, but presents the works of other scientists. What teachers do.


What other scientists? His work never actually cites anything properly. And yes, this is a guy whose work I am unfortunately and intimately familiar with. I have thankfully never sat in the same room as the guy, but I've watched videos of his. He randomly throws out ideas, he doesn't present any idea that is scientifically feasible, let alone scientifically supported.




Now, if you're talking about creationists doing this with each other, I'll agree. They never provide anything that is evidence based or works at all.


I completely disagree.


Well, since you're not quite as involved in the rodeo known as O&C, I'll let you have your disagreement. However, the recent (and bigoted, ignorant, downright ridiculous) thread "The Dark Face of Darwin" has received 13 flags, which it seems come from individuals who didn't bother reading the thread. It's common on O&C for any anti-evolution thread to automatically get half a dozen flags out of nowhere once it reaches a certain amount of posts.





Eh, it takes a lot. That's why I dropped US political madness, I found it so inane and based in pure emotional response that I had to decide between either engaging in discussion on O&C or on that forum...I chose O&C because there's at least some discussion of facts.


i agree with you there, I stopped entering the Politics forums myself.


Yay, we agree on something (not sarcasm)



No offense, but this would include yourself.


I do take that personal to a degree. What pains me the most in forums is spending the majority of the time pointing out false illogical arguments and trying to get posters to re-post an argument that is sound logically. One of my favorite subjects is debate and sadly, most posters on forums have never taken a class on debate and logical reasoning.


Then how is it that you can tolerate the works of Kent Hovind? I'm a former competitive debater (NFL policy and public forum. Was going to try my hand in LD, but I was sick for that tourney and didn't bother picking it up). Though I do agree with you that many on here wouldn't know a logical argument if it slapped them in the face, Hovind wouldn't know a logical argument if it took out a half billion dollar ad campaign specifically targeted at him.




Not that you're not a fairly reasonable individual (my position is that few individuals are more than 'fairly reasonable' but that is due to remaining teenage misanthropy that I haven't yet shaken out of my system), but you've yet to put forth any sort of sound argument for a creationist position when you've tried.


I disagree, just because the argument has not persuaded you doesn't mean it was not a sound argument. oftentimes an argument will be strong and sound and if the audience is not ready to let that argument challenge their worldview it will basically fall on deaf ears. If your standard for "good" means it has to persuade then that's out of my control.


I'm sorry, but a sound argument must rely on true premises. You have yet to put forth a single logically sound position with regards to that subject. And I've actually studied formal logic, I know a sound argument from an unsound argument quite easily. You have yet to provide an argument that is not inherently founded in an ignorance of either the natural or physical sciences and isn't full of holes.

I don't put forth the idea that a good argument is a convincing one, though the best arguments would be those that convince, but an idea that's fundamentally founded in ignorance isn't a good one.

Oh, and my worldview is this: The truth of the matter, no matter what my prior assumptions of it were, is the most important thing to me.

I'm not a particularly stubborn individual when presented with actual evidence and reasoning. I am quite stubborn when those two things are lacking, as I always seem to ask for them.




With regard to philosophical and theological debate you're definitely great with the formulation of arguments, but you don't seem to have the subtle difference in approach required for scientific debate.




I appreciate that, however, I feel that my reasoning is sound across the board and the battle is not evidence vs evidence, but worldview vs worldview.


Well, you're half right. It isn't evidence vs evidence. It is, in fact, evidence (science) vs world view (nonscience). The science is open for everyone, even believers in various religions. My favorite paleontologist, Robert T. Bakker happens to be a Pentecostal preacher, I'm sure his worldview in most matters is more likely to line up with yours than mine.



You would look at the Geologic column and see evidence of millions of years of Evolution and I look at the same evidence and see a giant flood 4,000 years ago that deposited heavier materials by way of Hydrological Sorting.


Except that you are demonstrating an ignorance of Hydrologic sorting, that isn't a worldview, it's a lack of information. Aside from that fact that Hydrologic sorting would put a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, a tetrapod in the Jurassic, etc, there isn't a single instance in which you can apply a geologic column solely to Hydrologic sorting. Sure, there are localized instances where there are periods of lakes being in places, inland seas, etc. But they're never a full column.




Now, I don't do discussions in private u2u form because I have a limited amount of time and it would become ridiculous with all the people who would prefer to have a private discussion rather than a public one.


And that's fine, we can have our public discussions in this forum where I prefer to address our different worldviews. just know why I refuse to go into the Origins forums. To me it's a circus arguing the wrong thing: Evidence.


Demonstrate to me that your position on Hydrologic sorting has some validity, and I might be inclined to see your point, if not agree with it. Until then, it's founded in an ignorance of geology, which is frankly a really cool science. Geologists rock. (Yes, I made the corny joke).




It also allows for the discussion to be public, which lets a lot more people take part, especially those who take part passively. More people read those threads than partake in the discussion and those are the people who I post for.


I share the same sentiments. I've always said the number of "views" is always about 5 times greater than the number of "posts" in any given thread/forum.


Another thing we agree on. It's a shame that they got rid of the 'views' counter.





That is a genuinely kind offer, but it would probably cost you quite a bit. I'm living in Malta and it would end up probably costing you more to ship it here than for me to pick up the book. I'll pick it up myself.


it doesn't hurt me at all, my funds are quite substantial. Plus, it would be a nice gesture to provide you with an author-signed copy.


Even if I were to take up the offer, I'm in the middle of a very busy year both academically and professionally. Try to give me a reminder in a few months and I might consider it.

Again, the generous offer is appreciated. I'll read the book sometime in the summer and possibly put up a thread. Depends on my workload or if I can get financing for my next project. In the best case scenario (at least for me, not for the ATS community), I put out the thread in September (classes resume in October). Worst case scenario (again, for me), I put it out in July.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If you believe so look up the term arbitrary


Obadiah:

3. The pride of their heart hath deceived them, they that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in their heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?

4.Though they exalt themselves as the eagle, and they set their nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.

I love that sig Typ... specially the first video link, though I would love to debate you sometime about the second.


edit on 12/28/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
***Madness, forgive me. As you know after several posts back and forth the replies get quite long. So I'll be addressing them in different posts. Give me a day of two to respond to them individually before you reply. I luckily have the next two days off so this will be a great time to do them all. Sorry, it's just getting quite long for a single, rational, response that your posts deserve.***



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



No, an Ad Hominem attack would be to call him a poop head. To call his work unsupported and to point out that others believe it to be so....that's not an ad hominem attack.


In some instances you're correct. However, in the context of this thread it's an Ad Hom attack. I originally presented the "Sun Shrinking" argument taken from Dr. Lisle. Nothing you presented as a counter-point addressed what Dr. Lisle stated about the Sun shrinking as it correlated to age of the universe discussions.

That's an Ad Hom argument. Neither of your links addressed the original argument made, they just attacked Dr. Lisle personally and professionally. Furthermore, merely pointing out 'others believe it to be so" as well is an Appeal to Numbers fallacy.

(more to follow)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
DBL Post.

Stupid site maintenance.
edit on 28-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Scroll to the rnd of Page 18 and read through page 19 for one of those quotes

The other quote is in reference to a speaker series entry on the blog of Answers in Genesis, which can be found here and it doesn't seem clear whether or not he did or did not write the work written above. No author seems to be provided. At best PZ Meyers was confused by Answers in Genesis and their odd lack of attributions in writings. Also, note that I called him "PZ Meyers" instead of "Dr. Meyers". PZ has published far more work than Lisle, has published primarily academic works, and is far more respected for his evidence based works. He's also a nice guy. Not that Lisle isn't, I just don't know much about his personality.



Sorry, I tricked you. I said Dr. Lisle never "authored" those two quotes, I never said they didn't appear in his book in the first chapter. They surely do. I was however, pointing out the piss-poor scholarship of the professor who included them in his tirade against Dr. Lisle. Yes, they are in the first chapter, but one will notice that each quote has an endnote number attached to it. The first quote:

"1. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter."

This quote was not authored by Dr. lisle, the endnote "3" is attached to it. Had the professor bothered to read to the end of the chapter, or follow the endnotes he would have learned the quote is:

"3. This is given as Theorem 28 in Dr. Werner Gitt's book "In the Beginning Was Information" (Green Forrest, AR: Master Books, 2006), p. 107."

The second quote:

"2.When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."

The endnote number attached to this quote is 4. The 4th endnote of chapter one follows:

"4. This is given as Theorem 15, Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information", p. 70.


and it doesn't seem clear whether or not he did or did not write the work written above. No author seems to be provided.


Wrong, it's clearly provided in the endnotes of the chapter, which is a case in point that the professor barely read the chapter in Dr. Lisle's book. And you don't need to link me the chapter to the book, it is resting in my lap as we speak.



(More to follow)



edit on 28-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: Capitalization



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



It's also an article that contains 10 citations, which you clearly didn't see. If you had, you would have realized I was pulling my punches by notproviding this source. But anyway, it should be easy enough for me to refute anything he says.


Red herring. We're not discussing Lisle's "Instant Starlight" theory. Even if others disagree with him and for sake of argument I'll grant that he is 100% wrong, it doesn't mean Dr. lisle is wrong with the Sun shrinking argument. That claim rests or falls on it's own even if Dr. lisle has been wrong on every previous argument to date.

(More to follow)




edit on 28-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: Having a rough day with the keyboard.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I don't doubt that you own several books and DVDs all from the same source. And I don't doubt that it's a creationist source that doesn't publish his supposedly paradigm changing scientific papers in the appropriate journals and instead publishes them in an upstart creationist journal that doesn't have any proper protocols in place.


Ponder this:

How many articles were written about the superiority of Capitalism over Socialism 30-40 years ago in the former U.S.S.R.?

Most journals today reject any publication from Creationists, the bias is astoundingly severe against. Secondly, posting something in a journal does not = truth. Can we create a list of ideas that have made it to journals that have been shown to be in error?

Poor choice of what determines truth IMHO.

(More to follow)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join