Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Jimmy D · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
This is what i actually said:

Did i say "i" ?
No.
What i can do, is show you how 'you' (meaning 'a person') can, by linking to examples.

It's just a cheap atheist trick to ignore the evidence.
It has little to do with me, you see.

If you meant you saw a bloke on Youtube 'destroying Darwinism' you should have been more clear.

Please link your examples, but remember, Youtube is not a valid source of verifiable scientific evidence.

Hieronymus · Apr 6, 2016

Jimmy D said:
If you meant you saw a bloke on Youtube 'destroying Darwinism' you should have been more clear.

Blokes presenting evidence.
You refuse? Fine.
Not my problem.
But i will ignore you from now on, because iḿ not here to take bull from people who refuse to be reasonable.
Best, H.

Loudmouth · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
This is what i actually said:

Did i say "i" ?
No.
What i can do, is show you how 'you' (meaning 'a person') can, by linking to examples.

It's just a cheap atheist trick to ignore the evidence.
It has little to do with me, you see.

In these forums, you are supposed to present the evidence yourself, not link to long videos. If you can't support a claim on your own, then don't make it.

Loudmouth · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Blokes presenting evidence.
You refuse? Fine.
Not my problem.

Yes, your problem. Your claim, your responsibility to present the evidence yourself.

If you don't find the evidence worth discussing, then why should we even waste our time on it?

bhsmte · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Well, then watch later.You don't look at what i point out to you.

Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

What evidencenis he ignoring?

Please point that out to us, with specifics.

Extraneous · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
It's edification for Christians, which is also important i.m.o.

Still, edification is done by giving good examples to follow, examples of meekness, i'm not judging him however, because im far from the saltiest of posters, although i do try brother

Hieronymus · Apr 6, 2016

Neogaia777 said:
Here's my problem...
Anyone help?

I think this is a good lecture for you to watch:

And i hope you will give it a fair chance.

bhsmte · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
I think this is a good lecture for you to watch:

And i hope you will give it a fair chance.

The typical questions would apply:

What is their scientific definition of design?

What is their falsifiable test, to determine if design is present or not?

JonFromMinnesota · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
They'll even deny Dawkins verbally acknowledging 'a signature of design' in DNA..

Not at all. Creationists fail to acknowledge they dishonesty quote minded The Blind Watchmaker and often double down on that lie. Read the book, here is the PDF: http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

Loudmouth · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
I think this is a good lecture for you to watch:

And i hope you will give it a fair chance.

This isn't the Recommended Watching forum.

JonFromMinnesota · Apr 6, 2016

bhsmte said:
The typical questions would apply:

What is their scientific definition of design?

What is their falsifiable test, to determine if design is present or not?

Without even clicking on the video, i'm guessing this is one big argument from incredulity. How close am I?

Hieronymus · Apr 6, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
Not at all. Creationists fail to acknowledge they dishonesty quote minded The Blind Watchmaker and often double down on that lie. Read the book, here is the PDF: http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

He said it also in "Expelled, intelligence not allowed".
And you deny he meant what he said, just as i expected...

JonFromMinnesota · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
He said it also in "Expelled, intelligence not allowed".

Which he was also taken out of context and highly edited. That film has been debunked a thousand times over and also revealed that Dawkins and others were intentionally tricked into thinking they were being filmed for something different.

Hieronymus said:
And you deny he meant what he said, just as i expected...

And you decided to double down on the lie. Just as expected.

From the same chapter the quote is mined from: "What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is no." (The Blind Watchmaker Page 3).

Will you triple down on this dishonesty or will you correct your mistake?

Loudmouth · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
He said it also in "Expelled, intelligence not allowed".
And you deny he meant what he said, just as i expected...

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

Does the Bible not mean what it says?

Subduction Zone · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
I think this is a good lecture for you to watch:

And i hope you will give it a fair chance.

Sad, when his joke at the start was a strawman argument that shows he does not understand evolution. Then he abuses the polls and conflates evolution with cosmology. One can be a scientist that is accepting the fact of the Big Bang, star formation, and the theory of evolution, and still be a Christian. It seems that he wants to claim that if one believes in a God that one has to reject reality. I don't have an hour and a half to listen to idiocy. When does he present any evidence?

bhsmte · Apr 6, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
Without even clicking on the video, i'm guessing this is one big argument from incredulity. How close am I?

Didnt watch the video, because i know the questions i posted, have not been answered by the ID crowd.

Until they can, ID doesnt mean much.

Jimmy D · Apr 7, 2016

bhsmte said:
What evidencenis he ignoring?

Please point that out to us, with specifics.

Good luck with that.

Jimmy D · Apr 7, 2016

Hieronymus said:
I think this is a good lecture for you to watch:

And i hope you will give it a fair chance.

I don't know if you are actually ignoring me after my unreasonable request for you to provide evidence for your assertions but here's a bit of advice for you about effective debating and what's expected of you in this forum. I hope you can take the time to read it.

From http://www.christianforums.com/threads/some-helpful-hints-about-effective-debating.7425824/

I. Structure of a Solid Argument
An argument is constructed of several parts. The first part is made up of one or more statements, called premises. These statements are used to logically arrive at one or more other statements, known as conclusions. The conclusions are the ideas that one is arguing for, and the premises are the support for those ideas. Thus, arguments can be (simplistically) broken down like so:

P1: All squares are rectangles
P2: My monitor is a square
C1: My monitor is a rectangle

Arguments can be much more complex, but follow this same basic structure.

A. Types of Arguments
There are two main types of argumentation: deductive and inductive. Deductive arguments begin from an absolute truth, and then logically conclude something in a specific case. The example above was a deductive argument. Deductive arguments are absolute - if the argument is sound (both logically valid, and built upon true premises), the conclusion must be true.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are more nebulous. These arguments begin from one or more specific cases, and attempts to demonstrate generalities. An example follows:

P1: All ice I have ever touched is cold
C1: All ice is cold

Inductive reasoning provides support for its conclusions, though it cannot prove them absolutely. The strength of the argument (its cogency) is based upon the validity of its structure, as well as the scope and truth of its premises. The example above was not cogent, because the scope of the premise was limited. A more cogent argument follows:

P1: There has never been a reported incident of ice that was not cold
C1: All ice is cold

Inductive reasoning is the basis for the scientific method. In fact, one could describe the scientific method as a means of systematically increasing the scope of our premises to improve the cogency of our scientific theories.

B. Refuting Arguments
There are two main ways for an argument to be wrong. An argument is invalid when the conclusions do not logically follow from the premises, and is the more serious of the two error types. Logical fallacies are common logical errors that people make, and their existence in an argument makes it shaky at best, and completely worthless otherwise. See [Dictionary of Logical Fallacies]. The following argument has two true premises, but contains a logical error:

P1: Christianity became the state religion of Rome in 380 AD
P2: Rome fell in 310 AD
C1: Rome fell because Christianity became the state religion

The conclusion does not reasonably follow from the premises, because the structure of the argument contains the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (After it, therefore because of it) fallacy.

The second way an argument can be wrong is through one or more faulty premises. Even if the logic is completely valid, a faulty premise makes the statement useless. Consider:

P1: Capitalism causes all hard workers to get ahead
P2: Poor people are not "ahead"
C1: Poor people in capitalistic societies are lazy

The argument above is completely valid, but is unsound nonetheless, since its first premise is faulty. Capitalism does notcause all hard workers to get ahead, so therefore the conclusion remains unsupported.
II. Citations
Arguments cannot stand alone. To make an effective argument, one must utilize logic and fact. To fulfill the latter, we often use citations.

A. What is a citation?
A citation is, according to Wiktionary, "The act of citing a passage from a book, or from another person, in his own words." (citation - Wiktionary). That right there was a citation. The general format is a quotation or summary of an article or resource followed by an attribution stating where the source was found or a means to view this source for one's self. In my case, the quotation is of a definition of "citation", while the attribution is the link posted between the parentheses.

Generally, the point of citing is to ensure that you are not simply making things up by attributing them to another person/thing. Also, this provides a way for other people to verify the validity of your source as well as proving that your argument is correct/superior.

B. What problems can arise from citations?
Bias.

A citation should strive to represent either the disinterested words/analysis of an expert or show facts as they really are.

When a citation is biased, it fails to give a fair and accurate representation of facts, thereby leading to falsification and thus weakening an argument, as a biased source fails to support an argument and also casts a bad light upon the person utilizing a biased source.

Additionally, citations cannot be used alone.

While a citation may present an argument, it is not good use of a citation to simply copy paste large sections into your browser. Citations should ideally only be citing facts, and facts without analysis are useless. Include either an analysis that supports your argument or cite a small section that has a clear, well-defined fact or argument that supports your argument.
Contributors: DeathMagus, roflcopter101

VirOptimus · Apr 7, 2016

Hieronymus said:
I think this is a good lecture for you to watch:

And i hope you will give it a fair chance.

It doesnt deserve any chance at all. It is crap, pure bs through and through.

Hieronymus · Apr 7, 2016

VirOptimus said:
It doesnt deserve any chance at all. It is crap, pure bs through and through.

yawn...

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency