Anyone want $250,000.00??

Great Debates
21

Archangel:

is a fallacy, by the way. There is no reason why both Option 1 and Option 3 could not be simultaneously true.

The man is looking for definitive, scientific evidence that God does not exist.

Science has never stated that God does not exist. Science can never prove that God does not exist. Science can never prove that God exists, either.

I kind suggest you read the “A professor and a Christian” thread. Science and religion are completely different disciplines.

JMCJ

Not Even Mentioned
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire

22

Well, no. Options 1 and 3 could not both be true unless God is not supernatural.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

23

God is omnipotent. There is no state the universe can be in that He could not have possibly have placed it in that state.

Humans, even a collection of them, are not omnipotent. There is a limit to the amount of fraud that is possible by a human or collection of humans. Or in other words, it possible to lock a system down so tight that no amount of human fraud could disturb it.

It is possible to, by means of science, to describe some realties of the universe absolutely or to the extent that no remotely reasonable probability exists that such a thing could occur in nature.

An example, imagine a 1 liter empty glass container being levitated 1m above the ground by superconductors in a vacuum sealed room. No person is present in the room, but witnesses are observing from all sides. The entire proceedings is also being videotaped from all sides. If the container were to suddenly fill and overflow with wine that would be a very convincing miracle.

24

Addendum: Keep in mind my example would only be absolute proof to the witnesses present. Simply showing the videotape later wouldn’t be considered absolute proof because of course the video could be tampered with. So, of course, you can’t do a single miracle that would convince everybody because everybody can’t be there and no means of information transmission exists that is tamper proof.

So, with imaginary technology, i.e. some means of information transmission that is tamper proof, you could be totally convincing with a single miracle.

25

Addendum 2: Of course, you would STILL find people who wouldn’t believe, but that is human nature.

26

Libertarian: Damn you! You’ve shown me the error of my evolutionary ways, and now I must reveal my true allegiance to Satan…

…though that’s only 'cause he said he’d vote for me in the next SDMB popularity contest.
Anyways, good point. Let me restate the fallacy then:

“Evolution”, as defined by Hovind, cannot include the existance of G-d.

“Evolution”, as defined by any rational scientist, makes no claim as to the existance of G-d. G-d may not exist, or G-d may exist and do His works through evolution.

Ergo, what Hovind is essentially asking is that it be proven that God does not exist.

Again, science makes no claim one way or the other regarding the existence of God.

JMCJ

Not Even Mentioned
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire

27

Sorry, Lib, but as I’ve said before (and even Navigator liked it), any omnipotent being worth his salt could create a universe without evidence in it that he did so.

In other words, your God could have used natural methods to start the Big Bang, etc. JMJC is right – 1 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, and this is the major fault in Hovind’s little contest.

28

Arnold ,

I would refer you to David’s arguement. He says it is possible. I would ask you to take on his position and the discuss why he is wrong and you are right.

David,

This quote:

and would the same not be true with you? Aren’t you refusing to believe a book in the face of evidence that disagrees with evolution also? As for “NO ONE saying it is impossible to provide evidence that evolution is right” I would sincerely ask you to debate Arnold’s position that it is infact IMPOSSIBLE.

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!

29

Archangel said:

Please check the wording. He said “prove,” I said “provide evidence.” They are not the same and I chose my words very carefully.

I had said: “It would be, however, impossible to prove it to Hovind and his pals, just as it would be impossible to prove it to you. Why? Because you’ve already made up your mind that evolution is wrong because you would rather believe a book than the scientific evidence around you.” You responded:

Huh? What evidence that disagrees with evolution? Your book is not evidence any more than Grimm’s Fairy Tales are evidence.

30

Arnold:

Do you REALLY believe this is a sincere offer? I cannot understand how anyone can not see through this. Really, I can’t. Since when does evolution have anything to do with the creation of the universe? And haven’t scientists been studying what happened at the beginning for many years now? What, do you expect someone to show up and say, “Ah, I’ve figured it all out, here’s 12 photos and 100 pages of written material that disprove that there was a God that created the universe.” ???!!???

Baffled PeeQueue

31

David,

The bible has been proven and accepted OFTEN as a historically accurate document even accepted as such by many public schools, ei Lousiana. The acceptance of the bible as a historical docuement would then give more credit to it than your supposed reference to Grimm’s Fairy Tales which has not been accepted as such.

Also David, you said:

So you are saying then that you can not prove evolution is true, Right? Hence it is in fact something you BELIEVE to be true, making it a belief NOT a fact?
BTW - I enjoy the polite attomsphere of this conversation. Thank you everyone for your attitude toward this discussion.

Barak bow` shem Yahshua!!

Maranatha!!!

32

Did you mean to address that to Arnold or Archangel?

33

Oops, sorry Arnold. I meant Archangel.

Still Baffled PeeQueue

34

I would think that Grimm’s Fairy Tales IS a historical document. IT was written in the past, it contains information which reflects the mores and values as well as accurate information concerning the period in which it was written. Based on this evidence should we conclude that Foxes and Ravens speak to each other as they do in Grimm’s Fairy Tales?

An interesting exercise is this.

I will tell you right now that a Dragon lives in my garage. (if I was showboating I might offer an award for you to disprove me)

“Ok.” you say, not quite beleiving. Let’s check it out.

We go to my garage but you don’t see the dragon.

“It’s invisible” I say.

“OK” you say, still giving me the benefit of the doubt. You look on the ground for Dragon footprints in the dust, but can’t find any.

“The Dragon is hovering above the ground. Of course there’s no footprints. Dragon’s have wings dummy”

By now you should be somewhat skeptical, but let’s say I’m a good friend and you want to give me the benefit of the doubt.

You take a can of spray paint and use it throughout the garage figuring that some should adhere to the dragon and make it at least partially visible.

“It’s a magic dragon” I say. "Nothing sticks to it. "

By this time you may begin to doubt the existence of the dragon in my garage. You may conduct other experiments in the attempt to ascertain it’s existence with similar results.

Finally, you give up. After all your efforts you are still forced to admit THAT IT IS POSSIBLE (no matter how remote) that you there is indeed a Dragon in the garage, and you somehow missed it (so you don’t get the money).

Just because you couldn’t prove the dragon wasn’t there in NO WAY can be construed as proof that there is a Dragon.

At this point a reasonable person might decide to go with the bulk of the available evidence and conclude provisionally that there is no dragon in my garage.

Now we can play games and conduct more experiments, and hypothesize all we want, but we both know:

THERE AIN’T NO DRAGON.

That is my metaphor for today with apologies to Carl Sagan from whom I paraphrase (badly)

35

Not that David needs any help, but it must be said that your reasoning (believing something which has a mass amount of evidence must be because of “faith”) simply shows that you have no concept of the way science works.

Here’s a word of advice: Don’t try and talk about things you do not understand. When I am on LBMB, I never question the interpretation of the Bible that the majority comes up with, I only ask questions to better understand, and also offer a more secular opinion when I feel it is needed.

You might wish to do the same thing about science, because you are arguing something that you (and Hovind, for that matter) has shown no understanding about.

I am willing to forgive you, since I feel you do this not out of malice, but ignorance. I won’t forgive Hovind, however.

Yer pal,
Satan

First Place
Most Popular Poster of the 20th Century Competition
As overseen by Coldfire

36

Archangel, there is a large difference between claiming a text has some historical veracity and claiming that it provides scientific evidence towards cosmology.

The Iliad had historical accuracy in that Troy was an actual city. That doesn’t mean, however, that the phenomenon we know as lightning is proven to be Zeus hurling spears from Mt. Olympus.

Also, another fallacy in Hovid’s offer is that he demands that evolution be proven as the mechanism that brought the universe into existence. Evolution doesn’t have anything to do with how the universe came into being. Evolution addresses only how populations of lifeforms change over time and become better adapted to their environoment.

37

Sorry PQ, there are no angels called Arnold as far as I know.

Archangel, divide and conquer, eh? :slight_smile:

What I’m saying:
It is impossible to disprove that a supernatural entity created the world.

which is also what David B was saying here

I agree with David that evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the facts known about the history of the earth and its living organisms. In that sense, it is proven. There are no other scientific theories that accord with the facts as well, which is why evolution should be taught in a science class.

I’ll say it a third time: What Mr. Hovind is asking us is “prove that it’s impossible for God to have created the earth.” Which is why no one has taken him up on his challenge, because you can’t prove that. But there is no evidence to show that creation is true, which is why “creationism” does not belong in a science class.

38

Glitch:

Thanks for providing the epistemological analysis I asked for. It sounds reasonable.

David:

Option 3 states “The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.”

It explicitly precludes supernatural intervention of any kind — no appeal — including the intervention of creating it or starting it all up.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

39

Archangel said:

Oh, well, that makes it alright then. If you can convince some school it’s right, it must be. Just like creationism. Whoops! Some schools bought into that as well, and they were wrong. In other words, not a very good way to judge what is right or not.

But, yes, the Bible does have some historical accuracy. That is a far cry from considering it a science book, though. So as far as science is concerned, it is as valid as Grimm’s.

I had said: “He said ‘prove,’ I said ‘provide evidence.’ They are not the same and I chose my words very carefully.” You responded:

< sigh > Archangel, do you know enough about science to understand that proof are for math? In science, you gather evidence, form a theory, etc. You don’t “prove” things. This is not a fault in evolution; it is a part of the scientific method.

You started from a faulty premise and jumped to a faultier conclusion. Just because it can’t be “proven” any more than anything else in science doesn’t mean it’s taken on faith or belief. Is the heliocentric theory a “belief”? Is gravity a “belief”? If so, maybe nonbelievers in gravity will test it out on a tall building.

But in any event, evolution is both theory and fact.

We usually try. Sometimes we get a bit impatient, though, when people say things like, “If you can’t prove it, it must be a belief.”

Also, just wondering, what do you think of Hovind now with the info I posted above?

40

Yes, Archangel, Listen to Satan! Give in and join us!

(I apologize for that outburst, I was overcome by the irony.)

I am in control of myself now.