Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creation...

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

This isn't a debate, it's Hytegia trying to push back the tide of uninformed nonsense. I think there'd be more success trying to stop the actual tide.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I feel sorry for Hytegia. There's so little to do in this debate.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Pup, in relying in the Hovind idea, fails.

Criticism
[edit] From creationists

Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their causes. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind[67] after he had criticized[68] a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"

.[69] In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[66] and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".[70]

The U.S. arm of AiG, led by Ken Ham, had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent in 2005. The Australian organization then split itself entirely off from its parent group, now styling itself Creation Ministries International. Material critical of Hovind was no longer available on the U.S. Answers In Genesis website, whereas the Australian CMI website retained the critical material.[71] In the 2002 article and a 2006 update, written by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati stated that the claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[67][72] CMI also criticized Hovind for using "fraudulent claims" made by Ron Wyatt in his claims.[67] In August 2009, the Australian CMI website has since published an article praising Creation Science Evangelism for removing some faulty arguments, but decided against deleting its article altogether because "there are lots of 'free-to-copy' DVDs of Kent Hovind's old talks circulating widely around the world and it will be some time before they disappear from circulation.[72]

Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000.[73][74] Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences,[75] and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."[76] Hovind and Ross previously debated in July 1999 on the Steve Brown Show.[77]

Hovind has stated that carbon dating, a method used by scientists to estimate the age of various objects and events, is unreliable.[78] He has been criticized by Greg Neyman of Answers in Creation (an old Earth creationist group), who says that in Hovind's statements "Hovind goes on to show that he knows absolutely nothing about the science of Carbon Dating."[79] Neyman says that Hovind's claim that "scientists assume the amount of carbon-14 is constant" is wrong, and Neyman writes "there are many periods of decreasing C-14, which disproves his theory that the Earth is young based on C-14 equilibrium."[79]
[edit] From non-creationists

Prior to his convictions, Hovind debated atheists, non-YEC Christians, skeptics, and scientists. In May 2004, Michael Shermer debated Hovind in front of a predominantly creationist audience. In Shermer's online reflection, while claiming he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence, he felt it was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an emotional drama."[80] While receiving positive responses from creationist observers, Shermer concluded "Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion."[80] Others, like evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci, have debated Hovind, and have expressed surprise at Hovind's ignorance of evolutionary theory.[81] Pigliucci indicated surprise at hearing Hovind try "to convince the audience that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks" and at Hovind's assertion that biologists believe humans "evolved from bananas."[81] In addition, William Reville, Biochemist and Director of Microscopy at University College Cork, wrote about Hovind, explaining "Creation science is not science. Science is based on ideas that are testable. What the creationists believe is not rational, but it cannot be disproved."[82]

In Hovind's debates, he focuses on points that he claims serve to discredit evolutionary theory, physical cosmology, and geology. He also presents what he claims is evidence for a Biblical flood, a young Earth, and the canopy theory. Scientists working in the appropriate fields,[83] as well as some young Earth creationists,[69] do not agree with Hovind's assertions.

Others criticize Hovind for his involvement with Arkansas state Representative Jim Holt's Anti-Evolution Bill in 2001 (House Bill 2548).[84][85] This bill "would have required that when public schools refer to evolution that it be identified as an unproven theory." Some politicians claimed this bill "would have made Arkansas a laughingstock."[86] Holt called upon Hovind as an expert who "testified for Holt before the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee, alleging much of the information pertaining to evolution in our science textbooks is false."[84] As for the legislation, "Holt admitted much of the information in his bill came from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution."[84]

Critics charge that Kent Hovind's presentations on creation and evolution are a mix of Christian Fundamentalism and conspiracy theories.[80] The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has criticized Hovind because of his selling of books such as Des Griffin's Fourth Reich of the Rich and Peter Kershaw's In Caesar's Grip, and recommending The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-known antisemitic hoax.[87] The SPLC reported that Hovind accuses Darwinism of having produced "Communism, Socialism, Nazism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement."[87] It also quotes Hovind as claiming that "democracy is evil and contrary to God's law."[87] In response to criticism, Hovind has stated: "I love the Jews. But The Protocols of Zion [sic] was written to explain how to control the world, I mean, it lays it all out. But it's really carefully done so that if it is ever discovered the Jews take the blame for it."[47]

The SPLC also criticized Hovind for "point[ing] his followers to Citizens Rule Book, popular among antigovernment "Patriots"; Media Bypass, an antigovernment magazine with strong antisemitic leanings"; and books by tax protester Irwin Schiff"[88] (Schiff has since been convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison).

While Kent Hovind is in prison, Eric has continued operating CSE and has received criticism for errors in his claims. Biologist PZ Myers criticized Eric and CSE employee Jonathon Sampson for their comments on cephalopods, writing "We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution" and "they lack the intelligence to grasp it."[89] In his criticism, Myers criticized Hovind for failing to look up the evolutionary scholarship on cephalopods and linked to his blog article on cephalopod evolution.[89][9

 

[Irokesengranate]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Your Article regarding X-Rays Speaks of REFRACTION not BLOCKING. And we must consider the intensity of the Rays. X-rays would be weakened by the magnetic field and the canopy would finish them off.

Apparently creationist photons have a charge...

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

The sad thing is, Puppyguy is going to probably go off after this debate feelin like he just kicked science in the balls when all he's done is flailed around like Star Wars kid.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I've always been astonished by the ability of some truly intelligent people to pursue for a long a logical study of facts, A well reasoned line of inquiry only to see the unpleasant light at the end of the tunnel, and instantly shout "NONONO THAT CAN'T BE TRUE NO NO THAT HAS TO BE WRONG NOOOO". This Condition Called Denialism, afflicts Billions Worldwide. Here's a Few Examples

We take the side of Science, In spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of Health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific Community for Unsubstantiated just-so Stories, because we have a prior Commitment, a Commitment to Materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a Material Explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced By our a priory adherence to material Causes, to create an Apparatus of investigation and set of Concepts that Produce Material Explanations, no-matter how Counter-intuitive, no-matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that Materialism is Absolute, for we cannot allow a Devine foot in the Door. - Richard Lewontin, Evolutionary Biologist.

I will concede that there is no reason to prefer a natural Explanation for DNA to a Supernatural one. However Given the History of conflict between [The Current Beliefs of Secular scientists] and religion I Will Tend to prefer the Natural Explanation to the Supernatural one. - Youtube user C0rd0rdance.

Such Closed-minded Denialism, is the greatest enemy of Knowledge. In order for science to Progress, We must stop systematically Ruling out all Claims that contradict the current Knowledge, beliefs and, Paradigms for Emotional Reasons. But that seems to be what science has become. Biology has Gone from the Study of Life, to the study of Death. And the Minds of the Public are following in its footsteps. May God Help us All.

Puppy must focus on producing evidence that supports creation. Mods, please remind him. Moderate the debate.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Puppy must focus on producing evidence that supports creation. Mods, please remind him. Moderate the debate.

That's his closing statement. There's nothing to moderate. Thank you for your input.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

We take the side of Science, In spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of Health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific Community for Unsubstantiated just-so Stories, because we have a prior Commitment, a Commitment to Materialism.

Has anyone ever explained to the puppy that we no longer view 40 years old as an elder and that we no longer need to breed 8 children to insure that 1 survives into adulthood?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

I considered stepping in to remind him of his role in this debate long ago, I decided against it. Hytegia has been doing a good job at reminding him of this already, and if I had done so you can guess that the next lines out puppy's maw would have been something about how unfair it is that moderators take sides in debates and how this whole forum is hopelessly biased - punctuated by a passive-aggressive offer to pray for us.

It's not like he would have complied in any case. He doesn't have any positive evidence, as he's repeatedly demonstrated.



And yes, that statement regarding health is absurd. When is the last time any of you ran into someone dying of typhoid?

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

We take the side of Science, In spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of Health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific Community for Unsubstantiated just-so Stories, because we have a prior Commitment, a Commitment to Materialism.

Has anyone ever explained to the puppy that we no longer view 40 years old as an elder and that we no longer need to breed 8 children to insure that 1 survives into adulthood?

He believes in god, what can I say?

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You can say he's an ill informed kid who has spent to much time having his mind abused by the filth that Hovind and Neph pull out their arses. Because it's true. His closing statement made me want to cry in dispair at humanity.

Hopefully PuppyTurtle will read this thread so I'd just like to point out to him that w don't ignore creationism for emotional or whatever reasons. It's not denialism. We ignore it because as you have demonstrated, you have no positive evidence in favour of your belief. Critiscising evolution and cosmology does not mean you win by default, especially when those criticism are fairy tales made up by men to support other fairy tales. Nephilimfree knows nothing. 2 years reading shit online does not mean you have a doctorate level education. Neither does Hovid, he wouldn't pass any science test in the UK, not even high school ones.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

A reference:
I accepted this debate due to the fact that I was carefully observing the interactions of ThePuppyTurtle and NephilimFree in a public chat as they bickered. You could almost feel the disgruntlement in Puppy's voice to Neph's explanations, though he still lapped it up like, well, a Puppy. I am disappointed in the long course of events - but I am glad that it turned out the way it did.

No Evidence. No Theory based upon that Evidence. Just criticism.

Just thought I would announce that, seeing as I HAVE been following this thread - do you honestly think I would wade a tide of bullshit all for naught? It's not as if this discussion will mean anything in the realm of science and the scientific process.
xD

 

[DutchLiam84]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You did a good job. I don't know what it is with this forum but but do we only attract the mentally handicapped creationists here? It's so hard to tell people who think they are the smartest person in the world that they are full of shit. It always amazes me that creationists go to the doctor when they have a pain, a plumber if a pipe leaks, the dentist when their teeth hurt, a mechanic when their car is broken etc. etc. and then go to an unemployed, alcoholic high school drop-out with a bit of spare time to educate them on Biology, or any other field of Science that supposedly contradict ze holly baibel.

Coming back to not giving any positive evidence...it was Hovind who was asked: What is your best evidence for Creation! Hovind replied: The sheer impossibility of the opposite (being Evolution).
Something with creationist and nut-shell.............

Again this debate was, from a neutral standpoint, a disappointment. Still waiting for the first creationists that knows what he's talking about!

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

A reference:
I accepted this debate due to the fact that I was carefully observing the interactions of ThePuppyTurtle and NephilimFree in a public chat as they bickered. You could almost feel the disgruntlement in Puppy's voice to Neph's explanations, though he still lapped it up like, well, a Puppy. I am disappointed in the long course of events - but I am glad that it turned out the way it did.

No Evidence. No Theory based upon that Evidence. Just criticism.

Just thought I would announce that, seeing as I HAVE been following this thread - do you honestly think I would wade a tide of bullshit all for naught? It's not as if this discussion will mean anything in the realm of science and the scientific process.
xD

You musn't write in this thread until the debate is over. Keep up the effort. :3

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

A reference:
I accepted this debate due to the fact that I was carefully observing the interactions of ThePuppyTurtle and NephilimFree in a public chat as they bickered. You could almost feel the disgruntlement in Puppy's voice to Neph's explanations, though he still lapped it up like, well, a Puppy. I am disappointed in the long course of events - but I am glad that it turned out the way it did.

No Evidence. No Theory based upon that Evidence. Just criticism.

Just thought I would announce that, seeing as I HAVE been following this thread - do you honestly think I would wade a tide of bullshit all for naught? It's not as if this discussion will mean anything in the realm of science and the scientific process.
xD

You musn't write in this thread until the debate is over. Keep up the effort. :3

It is over.

 

[Inferno]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You musn't write in this thread until the debate is over. Keep up the effort. :3

As I understand it, this was the closing statement? Or are you being funny and you mean "the debate in the whole world"?

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

You musn't write in this thread until the debate is over. Keep up the effort. :3

As I understand it, this was the closing statement? Or are you being funny and you mean "the debate in the whole world"?

If what I wrote was difficult to understand, then to clarify, what I meant was, hy isn't allowed to write in this debate reaction thread when his debate with puppy is on-going.

So, it's over. Huhuhu, I didn't know. Sorry about that. I didn't use my brain. Hehe.

 

[Bearcules]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

If what I wrote was difficult to understand, then to clarify, what I meant was, hy isn't allowed to write in this debate reaction thread when his debate with puppy is on-going.

The debate is over. They both have made their closing statements. It was over before he posted here.

*edit: I see you have already figured that out and fixed that post... apologies.

 

[lrkun]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Comments:

The debate is over, so I'll speak my mind and maybe rant a little.

The following must be observed next timei) both debaters must focus on their respective arguments, counter-arguments, and always provide basis; (ii) the mods need to participate actively or assign a member to moderate the debate; and (iii) there should be a poll thread in which the members can both for or against to resolve the debate after it is closed.

 

[WarK]

Re: Debate Discussion Thread for: "Evidence supports creatio

Comments:
The following must be observed next timei) both debaters must focus on their respective arguments, counter-arguments, and always provide basis;

oh, I see you're a new person on the forums, I recommend checking out some of the debates in the debate archive subforum.

(ii) the mods need to participate actively or assign a member to moderate the debate; and (iii) there should be a poll thread in which the members can both for or against to resolve the debate after it is closed.

Perhaps a poll could be a good idea, though we all know what the results would be. Not sure if it makes sense for all of forum members to vote against, usually, a new member of the forums. Seems like unnecessary abuse to me.