Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Michael » Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:07 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:He's admitted that creation science, like evolution, is 'origins science'. Though today he said it wasn't an 'admission' and he also made out that it was something that I should have realised was the case all along.



Ah, yes! Creation science is supported by a literal interpretation of the bible and gross misrepresentation of science
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Rev'd Tony Breeden

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:27 pm

Rev'd TB has made another response to me on his website. And then SHUT ME OUT SO THAT I CANNOT REPLY. Coward.
http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/an ... mment-2194

I suppose if I was asking him questions in a public meeting (HARDER to do than making considered posts online) I would probably have been bundled away by 'security' at this point! Whilst I don't object if he has the last word (as I had the first word) he appears to be shutting me out on rather DUBIOUS grounds

I have however just emailed to Rev'd Breeden what I WOULD have said (also copied to the BCSE Committee for info, though of course I have no formal involvement with the BCSE):

"I see that you have made another reply to me on your website. And then summarily CLOSED DOWN THE DISCUSSION (British Centre for Science Education - who are aware of my exchanges as referenced on your online Community Forum - you may wish to note this development).

So HERE is what I WOULD have said (which is written IGNORING the fact that I cannot say it):

I can't speak for others you may have had contact with, but when I discussed science background or awareness I was NOT attempting to "avoid engaging the argument".

"So you believe it is a faith statement. Believe. Why is that? Ah, because you have a bias. If God or the Bible are mentioned, you immediately categorize a statement or argument into a box labeled “faith,” or “belief” or somesuch; and since you’ve arbitrarily labeled it thus, in your mind that forbids that statement or argument from being a logical argument, right?" WRONG - because I've already admitted that your statement (or your argument) has logic. A faith statement can include logic. Or do you disagree? And what you label a 'bias' on my part I would prefer to call common sense.

"You have NOT paid attention. You are NOT addressing my arguments." I have paid attention. And your claim that I haven't addressed your arguments hasn't been substantiated. You use a logical argument that the Bible's account of Creation is true, but because you are making the statement regardless of the scientific evidence it is a faith statement.

"If you’re saying that statements that aren’t based on direct observation of the evidence have no place in science curriculum...". I'm not. There is a difference between the modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism. The former is based on the sum of available scientific evidence, and could be revised if new evidence comes in. Whereas creationism is an alternative belief about origins, based on a literal reading of the Bible (or another holy book), and only supported by a small amount of scientific evidence eg the complexity of cells for instance. A complete history of life on Earth, over 3.5 bn years or so, cannot be re-enacted in a laboratory, but that is where most scientists (including a considerable number of theistic scientists) believe the evidence leads. By contrast, your faith position is that because you believe the Bible, logic means that evolution (in the sense just described over billions of years) is of necessity 'false'. That is why I think creationism should be covered in religious studies and not as part of science.

"I’ve actually detailed a definition of science in several places..." As far as I recall you've only defined science as 'knowledge', disagreed with a definition I found, and discussed a distinction between operational and origins science.

"...The evolutionary worldview is flawed. Why aren’t the laws of the universe still evolving? Why aren’t laws of reason or logic different in different areas of the universe?" Assuming one's evolutionary worldview omits God (it need not) one would certainly still expect mathematical laws to be fixed and unchangeable. Whether the laws of physics can (or do) change over time, or in different parts of the universe, I'm not in any position to say - though I'm sceptical that you could ever have such a thing as a totally chaotic universe without any fixed physical laws ie either NO laws or else laws that were totally random and constantly altering.

Whether or not there are any 'pearls' within my arguments is I think for others to determine."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Sirius Knott » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:04 pm

Mr Ashley Haworth-Roberts,

By now you should have received an email fully refuting the logical fallacies you sent to me by email. Apparently, you were overconfident enough to also post them to this site, along with a snide accusation questioning my temerity.

Enclosed in the email, you will find a question which you must answer in order to re-activate the discussion you feel you were so unjustly cut off from, in the full flower of your youth, no less. Your answer must be logical, non-contradictory and non-arbitrary.

I will not do you the disservice of calling you a coward if you do not answer my question. I will simply assume you aren't equipped for the challenge.

From across the pond,
Rev Tony Breeden
http://DefendingGenesis.org & http://CreationLetter.com
Sirius Knott
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:39 pm

Sirius Knott wrote:Mr Ashley Haworth-Roberts,

By now you should have received an email fully refuting the logical fallacies you sent to me by email. Apparently, you were overconfident enough to also post them to this site, along with a snide accusation questioning my temerity.

Enclosed in the email, you will find a question which you must answer in order to re-activate the discussion you feel you were so unjustly cut off from, in the full flower of your youth, no less. Your answer must be logical, non-contradictory and non-arbitrary.

I will not do you the disservice of calling you a coward if you do not answer my question. I will simply assume you aren't equipped for the challenge.

From across the pond,
Rev Tony Breeden
http://DefendingGenesis.org & http://CreationLetter.com


Hummm. Sounds interesting. A fundamentalist American pastor has turned up in our forum, apparently to pick a fight with Ashley.

Pulls up arm chair, sits down in front of screen, opens bag of popcorn and waits for the entertainment to begin.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:28 pm

Roger

Only just had the chance to view this forum today.

I've lately been linking to my recent exchanges with Rev'd Breeden on his website at this forum. I also told him yesterday (possibly sooner, I forget) that I had done so. I have said NOTHING about him here which I now regret or that I wish to keep hidden.

THAT'S why he's posted here today.

HIS email to me:
"I have been well aware that you've been re-posting our exchange on the discussion board of your local evolution enforcement group, the British Centre for Science Education. I'm also aware that you called me a coward from behind the safety of your fences. Where the eagles are silent the parrots will jabber.
The reason I closed our discussion is because it was [1] achieving nothing and [2] becoming more and more disjointed as it progressed. The site you visited is mine and I am under no constraints, by law or implication, to continue this sort of tortured, discombobulated communication.
It had also become obvious that you are not a worthy opponent. You've consistently ignored nearly everything I've said and you've completely misunderstood the rest.
For example, you state that you would prefer to call common sense what I've called bias. It would truly be an uncommon sort of common sense if yours were the gold standard! Did you not comprehend that in your very answer you demonstrated the truth of my accusation? You hear Bible or God and all you can see for it is faith and belief; therefore your bias has gotten well in the way of your ability to recognize a pure logical statement desite its subject matter. Here's another example: "You use a logical argument that the Bible's account of Creation is true, but because you are making the statement regardless of the scientific evidence it is a faith statement." By your logic, one could say, "The Pope is not his office; therefore he's probably in the lieu" and that would be a faith statement, simply because it touches upon a religious subject! Do they teach you Brits logic?
In the same breath, you commit the logical fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. "A faith statement can include logic. Or do you disagree?" Of course a faith statement can include logic and quite often does, but that wasn't the question, was it? No, the question was whether or not I had made a purely logical argument or else a faith statement. Again, it's clear your bias keeps you from comprehending the reality of the situation.
Another example, you claim that evolution has this mountain of evidence while creationists are "only supported by a small amount of scientific evidence," ignoring the fact that I anticipated this objection by noting how we both have the same evidence with different interpretations. Again, proof that you're simply not paying attention.
You use special pleading, begging that scientists don't act on faith when they extrapolate 3.5 billion years of Earth history because they BELIEVE that's where the evidence leads after all, yet criticizing a belief in the Bible's history.
Can an evolutionist offer anything even remotely ressembling sound logic?? This is why I think evolution should be shelved next to Kipling's Just So Stories and Grimm's Fairy Stories and not as part of science. And that's where it can be found on my shelves, come to think of it.
Would you like to redeem yourself? Then answer one simple question: According to your evolutionary worldview, is there any non-contradictory, non-arbitrary reason you should expect there to be any sort of uniformity of nature and nature's laws?
If not, I feel justified in closing the discussion.
One last thing. Regarding your comment, "Whether or not there are any 'pearls' within my arguments is I think for others to determine," I simply must ask: Are you at all Biblically literate? Do they not teach the Bible at least for cultural context and history over there in Britain? So you get the references for Shakespeare and Milton, at least?
Point being, the Bible says, "Do not cast your pearls before swine." [Sermon on the Mount, no less]. I assure you I've never supposed there were any pearls within your arguments. The pearls were mine for the casting and it's obvious that I've misjudged their recipient.
You should read the Bible rather than simply criticize it from ignorance."
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:31 pm

And MY reply to Breeden a few minutes' ago:
"I have no direct involvement with the BCSE but I have made NO secret of the fact that I have referred - in a pure factual manner with the link attached - to our recent exchanges on their community forum. You will doubtless note the other comments there. I've also referred, factually, to our exchanges at the BBC Religion message board today.
I agree that our discussion achieved nothing for you. If I may say so, you CONTINUALLY resort to unfounded personal allegations and accusations against me committing obscure 'fallacies'. Which is why I referred earlier to 'plain English'. Presumably you wished to distract and perhaps provoke me because you couldn't refute my arguments. When that strategy failed you decided to try to put an end to my contributions instead.
I find your comments below about bias and common sense unfathomable and apparently illogical.
"You claim that evolution has this mountain of evidence while creationists are "only supported by a small amount of scientific evidence," ignoring the fact that I anticipated this objection by noting how we both have the same evidence with different interpretations." You twist my words. Of course all scientists have the same evidence. But very little of it supports Genesis creationism.
"Proof that you're simply not paying attention." Proof of the opposite I'd say.
For your information, I have read and studied the WHOLE Bible. I was an evangelical Christian for 20 years, but I didn't like the idea of browbeating and occasionally even lying for Jesus.
Please tell me what you WOULD consider a worthy opponent. One who didn't challenge the bizarre argumentation, oversimplifications and strong-arm tactics of creationism?
I believe I comprehend the realities here all too well.
By all means keep telling yourself that you have emerged victorious in the discussion. Then ONE of us will be convinced.
Before attempting to answer your question below, I'd be grateful if you could explain exactly what you mean by 'uniformity of nature and nature's laws'. I want to understand better what I'm meant to be answering.
If you do NOT reply I will NOT pursue this further. It's your call."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:42 pm

PS My computer was behaving in a completely deranged manner while I was typing my email reply. Was God trying to stop me telling the truth or simply trying to make me lose my temper?!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:59 am

I've had another exchange with Tony Breeden. This time I've simply copied my email reply to the BCSE's Community email address, as I'm aware there is no specific link to UK science teaching as he's in America.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby psiloiordinary » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:50 am

So to be able to talk to this guy we have to be able to answer a question that implies the laws of nature are something to do with an acceptance of the evidence for evolution?


:lol:
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:19 am

psiloiordinary wrote:So to be able to talk to this guy we have to be able to answer a question that implies the laws of nature are something to do with an acceptance of the evidence for evolution?


:lol:


Yep, it's really colourful.

I came across Breedon some years back; he's someone I've forgotten about.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:20 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I've had another exchange with Tony Breeden. This time I've simply copied my email reply to the BCSE's Community email address, as I'm aware there is no specific link to UK science teaching as he's in America.


Ashely, as he's bad mouthing the BCSE, why don't you just duff him up in this community forum? No one will complain!
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:22 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:PS My computer was behaving in a completely deranged manner


The only thing deranged around here at the moment is the Rev Tony Breedon.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:25 pm

If Roger or somebody else wishes to paste in the latest e mail exchange between Breeden and myself, in the early hours of today UK time, I have no objection. I didn't do so (though I did so when the exchanges were on his website in order to keep a copy of my replies in case they failed in the moderation process) because I wasn't sure whether you'd necessarily want me to do so as there isn't an obvious link to UK education developments.

Of course as you all will be aware, my posting a message on Tony Breeden's website was ENTIRELY on my own initiative and not prompted by ANYBODY else. I've also acknowledged, either here or at the BBC Religion message board, that rather than simply deleting me from his website for being 'off-topic' he did engage me in what one might call 'lively debate'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Michael » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:20 pm

Sirius Knott wrote:Mr Ashley Haworth-Roberts,

By now you should have received an email fully refuting the logical fallacies you sent to me by email. Apparently, you were overconfident enough to also post them to this site, along with a snide accusation questioning my temerity.

Enclosed in the email, you will find a question which you must answer in order to re-activate the discussion you feel you were so unjustly cut off from, in the full flower of your youth, no less. Your answer must be logical, non-contradictory and non-arbitrary.

I will not do you the disservice of calling you a coward if you do not answer my question. I will simply assume you aren't equipped for the challenge.

From across the pond,
Rev Tony Breeden
http://DefendingGenesis.org & http://CreationLetter.com



My dear Knott

What church do you belong to and who ordained you? You need to say so as one can get ordained by sending off to a website
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Ken Ham misrepresents Stephen Hawking

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:59 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:If Roger or somebody else wishes to paste in the latest e mail exchange between Breeden and myself, in the early hours of today UK time, I have no objection.


Done:

Mr Haworth-Roberts et al,

Lest my good manners be impugned, let me first welcome those you've unaccountably added to this email discussion.

Before I address one or two particular points in this email, I'll address the more pertinent issues. You ask me what I mean by the uniformity of nature and nature's laws. Fair question. This is all that is meant: in order for us to study nature, there must be an underlying orderliness to the universe. The universe is indeed understandable, logical, orderly, obeying mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. This underlying uniformity allows us to make reliable predictions and makes science possible.

With that out of the way, a few comments, as promised:

Regarding the charge of "obscure fallacies," you must be kidding. I'm only pointing out common fallacies and I haven't thrown a Latin term at you yet. In each case, I've more or less explained why your comment falls under a particular logical fallacy rather than making you scour the Web to educate yourself, so I think I've been more than fair. By pointing out that your arguments were fallacious, I was noting that they were without merit; far from avoiding them, I was addressing and negating them.

Since you mentioned it, in regards to my "unfathomable" comments, a lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute a logical fallacy on my part. Just saying.

Your charge that "very little" of the evidence supports evolution demonstrates my charge that you seem unable to grasp the point. Let me put it more bluntly. Evolutionists would say of the evidence that most of it supports evolution and very little of it supports Creation; however, Creationists would say, of the self-same pile of evidence evolutionists claim support their theory, that it supports Creation and not evolution. Evidence is interpreted.

Regarding your question as to whom I would consider a worthy opponent, I simply must ask: What the devil do you mean by "the bizarre argumentation, oversimplifications and strong-arm tactics of creationism?"

Lastly, and I bid you all good day with this one, I've NEVER had to lie for Jesus. Why did you think you had to?

God bless,
*Rev Tony Breeden
aka Sirius Knott
CreationLetter.com
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron