Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[docrob57]

I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?

 

[Metalking]

Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts?Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?

 

[docrob57]

Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts?Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?

Yes, and like other matters of classical mechanics, it fails to work once the particles get small, so it is just a theory with a more limited range of application than previously believed.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?

We were set to do BR IX and then BR X (with Bob) but then the BR IX fell through at the last minute.

We were then compelled to leave Bob's battle as BR X.

Not to mention all of this adds extra intrigue. :

 

[fool]

I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?

Cause it's Knight's site and he can do it that way if he wants.
He mentioned it on whichever BEL that he and Lion Guest hosted diring the battle.
I believe it was the start of the show featuring fool.

 

[docrob57]

We were set to do BR IX and then BR X (with Bob) but then the BR IX fell through at the last minute.

We were then compelled to leave Bob's battle as BR X.

Not to mention all of this adds extra intrigue. :

I figured it must be something like that. I hope to read it in detail soon and offer critiques that you most likely will agree with. I am tired of disagreeing with the brethren, and want to disagree with others for a while.

 

[fool]

Cause it's Knight's site and he can do it that way if he wants.
He mentioned it on whichever BEL that he and Lion Guest hosted during the battle.
I believe it was the start of the show featuring fool.

 

[fool]

Knight;
Can you delete 107 and this one.
Thanx.

 

[PureX]

Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts? Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?

Gravity is a phenomena, and that phenomena is a fact. How and why gravity works, however, is a theory.

 

[fool]

Just because the first button on the left is usually the edit button,
does not mean that the first button on the left is always the edit button.

 

[docrob57]

Just because the first button on the left is usually the edit button,
does not mean that the first button on the left is always the edit button.

Trueer words were never spoken, my friend. I have no idea why you said that, but it is certainly true.

 

[mighty_duck]

I assert, therefore I am

I assert, therefore I am

Jim's second post is somewhat of a disappointment. He did not make his TAG case, only kept on asserting it. This may be a good thing for stratnerd, who can likewise assert it is false. It looks like Jim is waiting for the actual question "Science does not rely on the biblical worldview. prove it!" before he feels justified in presenting his underlying argument.

1. Christian Evolutionists - How predictable. Jim asserts they are all wrong. Not true scottsmen. The Bible can only be interpreted as he would like it to be. When he would like, the Bible is to be read literally . In cases where it hurts his case, it should be read metaphoricaly, "in context", or some such BS. There is nothing arbitrary about this, the reader assumes what he would like, and tries to twist the Bible's words to fit that.
2. Does a bit of semantic shuffling, equating Evolutionist with Atheist. Stratnerd should NOT concede this, as it would be a de facto admition that there are no Christian Evolutionists.
3. Natural vs Supernatural. 5 senses have nothing to do with our definiton of natural (I've never seen or smelled an atom. Ditto for gravity). A more useful term would be to equate natural to "testable, falsifiable". Therefore by definition, science must ignore these "supernatural" factors. Fun fact: There is no such thing as supernatural. Once something is found to exist, it is natural. That's not to say we know everything there is to know.
4.

The concept of the uniformity of nature needs a rational foundation. It should not be blindly assumed.

So begins the double standard. In an atheist worldview, uniformity of nature (UoN) is an axiom, and requires no rational foundation, in an absolute sense. Assuming that one exists is begging the question. Another way to say this is that UoN is in the "nature of the universe". We can wrap all our axioms into one universe just as easily as you can into one god.
Now, can you explain the rational foundation for God? In your worldview, He is an axiom, and needs no foundation.

My claim is that the reason nature is uniform, regular and orderly, and the reason human beings are able to comprehend them, is because the creation reflects and is analogous to the nature of its Creator.

Big fat non sequitur! God could have chosen for the world to work in a way that is wholly different than his nature! To deny this, is to deny God's power.
This should be rammed to the ground quickly, as it is the basis for Jim's entire claim that God is the Christian God, and not a Deist god or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

5. HQ2b. I would be very careful here. They are as certain as the axioms they are built upon. The same can be said of Jim's worldview. I am as justifiably certain of these, as you are with your God in your worldview.
This can later be used as an analogy to Jim's main argument - Iff Stratnerd's axioms are absolutely true, then his worldview is true. If judging Jim's worldview externally - IE assuming Stratnerd's Worldview and axioms, then Jim's is irrational! It does not use rational means to extract God using Stratnerd's Axioms. Likewise any other worldview is Irrational because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. Therefore the axioms are absolutely true. Fun Fun Fun!

6. HQ3: Jim asks a silly question. Its not that ID can't make a internally justified "if-then" condition. It's that under ID, ALL predictions are justified! Which is just as useless as making no predictions at all.

7. Is Jim claiming that an ameba is sentient? That's what it looks like he is predicting. Again, anything can be predicted in a creationist worldview, so nothing is. Sound confusing? let me demonstrate:
According to some worldview, I can rationally deduce that it will rain tomorrow. According to that same worldview, I can also predict that it will not rain tomorrow. Whether it rains or not, I will say I had predicted it. In fact, my predictions are useless.

8. Makes multiple references to Abiogenesis, which should routinely be ignored for the purposes of this debate.

9. HQ7: same question as HQ3, same fallacy. ID predicts that we will find a fossil of an ape with wings, that shoots fire out its backend.

10. Creationist studies. Stratnerd could take the time to debunk a couple of these studies, if for nothing else to devalue Jim's assertions. Best case scenario Jim will say "well those studies were wrong, but that doesn't prove you are right". WCS he denies the rebuttal.

11. Top down vs Bottom up. Jim essentially rejects the scientific method. I wound pounce on that, as it would mean victory in the debate.

12. Made this damaging comment

no other human being can be regarded as the source of absolute knowledge

But where does he think he gets his English Bible from? And why does he think there are so many different translations? Are they all absolutely true?


So little meat in that 2nd post, and so many errors. Because he didn't reveal his TAG cards, I would award this round to stratnerd.
My score so far 1-1. YMMV

 

[PureX]

Jim's second post is somewhat of a disappointment. He did not make his TAG case, only kept on asserting it. This may be a good thing for stratnerd, who can likewise assert it is false. It looks like Jim is waiting for the actual question "Science does not rely on the biblical worldview. prove it!" before he feels justified in presenting his underlying argument.

1. Christian Evolutionists - How predictable. Jim asserts they are all wrong. Not true scottsmen. The Bible can only be interpreted as he would like it to be. When he would like, the Bible is to be read literally . In cases where it hurts his case, it should be read metaphoricaly, "in context", or some such BS. There is nothing arbitrary about this, the reader assumes what he would like, and tries to twist the Bible's words to fit that.
2. Does a bit of semantic shuffling, equating Evolutionist with Atheist. Stratnerd should NOT concede this, as it would be a de facto admition that there are no Christian Evolutionists.
3. Natural vs Supernatural. 5 senses have nothing to do with our definiton of natural (I've never seen or smelled an atom. Ditto for gravity). A more useful term would be to equate natural to "testable, falsifiable". Therefore by definition, science must ignore these "supernatural" factors. Fun fact: There is no such thing as supernatural. Once something is found to exist, it is natural. That's not to say we know everything there is to know.
4.


So begins the double standard. In an atheist worldview, uniformity of nature (UoN) is an axiom, and requires no rational foundation, in an absolute sense. Assuming that one exists is begging the question. Another way to say this is that UoN is in the "nature of the universe". We can wrap all our axioms into one universe just as easily as you can into one god.
Now, can you explain the rational foundation for God? In your worldview, He is an axiom, and needs no foundation.


Big fat non sequitur! God could have chosen for the world to work in a way that is wholly different than his nature! To deny this, is to deny God's power.
This should be rammed to the ground quickly, as it is the basis for Jim's entire claim that God is the Christian God, and not a Deist god or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

5. HQ2b. I would be very careful here. They are as certain as the axioms they are built upon. The same can be said of Jim's worldview. I am as justifiably certain of these, as you are with your God in your worldview.
This can later be used as an analogy to Jim's main argument - Iff Stratnerd's axioms are absolutely true, then his worldview is true. If judging Jim's worldview externally - IE assuming Stratnerd's Worldview and axioms, then Jim's is irrational! It does not use rational means to extract God using Stratnerd's Axioms. Likewise any other worldview is Irrational because of the Impossibility of the Contrary. Therefore the axioms are absolutely true. Fun Fun Fun!

6. HQ3: Jim asks a silly question. Its not that ID can't make a internally justified "if-then" condition. It's that under ID, ALL predictions are justified! Which is just as useless as making no predictions at all.

7. Is Jim claiming that an ameba is sentient? That's what it looks like he is predicting. Again, anything can be predicted in a creationist worldview, so nothing is. Sound confusing? let me demonstrate:
According to some worldview, I can rationally deduce that it will rain tomorrow. According to that same worldview, I can also predict that it will not rain tomorrow. Whether it rains or not, I will say I had predicted it. In fact, my predictions are useless.

8. Makes multiple references to Abiogenesis, which should routinely be ignored for the purposes of this debate.

9. HQ7: same question as HQ3, same fallacy. ID predicts that we will find a fossil of an ape with wings, that shoots fire out its backend.

10. Creationist studies. Stratnerd could take the time to debunk a couple of these studies, if for nothing else to devalue Jim's assertions. Best case scenario Jim will say "well those studies were wrong, but that doesn't prove you are right". WCS he denies the rebuttal.

11. Top down vs Bottom up. Jim essentially rejects the scientific method. I wound pounce on that, as it would mean victory in the debate.

12. Made this damaging comment

But where does he think he gets his English Bible from? And why does he think there are so many different translations? Are they all absolutely true?


So little meat in that 2nd post, and so many errors. Because he didn't reveal his TAG cards, I would award this round to stratnerd.
My score so far 1-1. YMMV

This was a very entertaining and well thought out post. Thanks mighty_duck!

 

[sentientsynth]

This is shaping up to be a very lively debate. Great job, Hilston and Stratnerd.

 

[Metalking]

ID

ID

Yes, and like other matters of classical mechanics, it fails to work once the particles get small, so it is just a theory with a more limited range of application than previously believed.

Have you looked in to the recent research on Intelligent Design and do you feel as I do that it will be brought in to this battle? From what I have researched so far I find the argument for more powerfull then against.

 

[fool]

Have you looked in to the recent research on Intelligent Design and do you feel as I do that it will be brought in to this battle? From what I have researched so far I find the argument for more powerfull then against.

ID is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

 

[Metalking]

"The evolutionist idea is supposed to be driven by purely natural forces, the Bible does not support that."
I agree with this statement.

 

[Metalking]

I do not understand how anyone with any skill at mathematics would consider the exact size of the moon and it's distance between the earth and the sun can explain the eclipse as "coincedence".Just as math proves the population today can be explained by the time of the flood....many more things shrugged off as random or chance...I think not.

 

[fool]

Hi Eff (I really do hate calling you "fool").

You can call me fool, it's from 1Corinthians3:18

This is an excellent post you've made. It provides a wonderful opportunity to talk about an important point concerning how a resolution of the differences between the Creationist and Evolutionist should be addressed.

Why do we need to resolve only those two?
I see the possible theories regarding the origins of the universe to be infinite.
While there is only one correct answer. It seems to me the investigator would do himself a grave diservice by only examining two theories.

I would agree with you if there were such a thing as "brute facts," i.e. uninterpreted data.

So are you saying there is no correct answer?

The problem is, a worldview -- that is, a system of thought by which one regiments his reasoning and tries to make sense of the world -- is necessary to meaningfully make or comprehend any statement whatsoever. To say that "a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor" is NOT the same as saying "a statement can be comprehended or affirmed APART from a worldview." That is, apart from a working paradigm, even a true statement would be meaningless. While a statement can be true regardless of the worldview of the positor, that statement can only be meaningful and make sense within a worldview, the Creationist/Theistic worldview in particular.

So you posit that there can be no such thing as an impartial observer?

My position is that all true predication makes sense only in terms of the Creationist/Theistic worldview. All other worldviews will fail at this point. Furthermore, any meaning and comprehension attained and held by anti-Creationist/anti-theistic worldviews are in spite of, not because of, their false view. Moreover, any meaning and comprehension that is held by the anti-Creationist/anti-Theist comes from tacitly and unwittingly borrowing the tools of the Creationist/Theist paradigm, even while attempting to discredit and debunk Creationist/Theist claims.

I'm still unclear on how you support the notion that Bible believers own the factory when it come to logic.

Thanks again for your post.

Thank you, this is the most civil conversation I have ever had with a creationist

 

[fool]

I do not understand how anyone with any skill at mathematics would consider the exact size of the moon and it's distance between the earth and the sun can explain the eclipse as "coincedence".Just as math proves the population today can be explained by the time of the flood....many more things shrugged off as random or chance...I think not.

There it is again!
Metalking please read this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance
Also, are you Metal King or Me talking?