Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Coe and DeLong attempt a resurrection!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Having been run off from David (not David ) P. Brown s ContendingFTF list, Daniel Coe and Don DeLong are trying to resurrect Don DeLong s previously deceased
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 23, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Having been run off from David (not "David") P. Brown's ContendingFTF list, Daniel Coe and Don DeLong are trying to resurrect Don DeLong's previously deceased ChristianEvidences list.

      That show can be viewed at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianevidences/

      If it works, the Oral Roberts organization has some job openings for them in Tulsa, OK!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • w_w_c_l
      Don DeLong uses circular reasoning, god-of-the-gaps, equivocation fallacies and his own ignorance of science to prove the existence of God! Also displays a
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Don DeLong uses circular reasoning, god-of-the-gaps,
        equivocation fallacies and his own ignorance of science
        to "prove" the existence of God!

        Also displays a lack of ordinary common sense:

        from:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianevidences/message/271


        Re: Lessons from implication.


        --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com,
        "Daniel Coe" <preacherdhc@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Brother Don, and List,
        >>
        >> What amazes me about the atheists is that they
        >> fail to realize that they have no choice bu to
        >> believe in miracles, at leat one!!!
        >>
        >> Atheists fail to realize that they MUST concede
        >> to the fact that a spontaneous generation of life
        >> had to be at the root of all life as they assert.
        >>
        >> Atheists have to accept that life had to
        >> spontaneously generate itself from that which was
        >> lifeless. They cannot deny this, even given their
        >> own position.
        >>
        >> Thus it makes far better sense to accept the miracle
        >> of and God said...and it was so.." Than to believe
        >> the silliness of the miracle of spontaneous
        >> generation of life from lifelessness.
        >>
        >> Daniel Coe

        This is the classic god-of-the-gaps argument that
        Daniel Denham has been accusing me of holding to,
        in spite of the numerous times we (Todd and I) have
        pointed out to him that god-of-the-gaps is a logical
        fallacy.

        Let's see if Daniel Denham recognizes this logical
        fallacy coming straight from Daniel Coe and Don DeLong!


        For Don DeLong replies:

        > Daniel,
        >
        > Absolutely. Aside from the fact that there is
        > evidence (God's written Word) for the miracle
        > (the setting aside of the "natural laws") of
        > creation.
        >
        >
        > There is NO evidence for the miracle (again,
        > "natural laws" would have to be set aside) of
        > evolution.
        >
        > In fact, there is no "natural law" that will
        > even uphold the precepts of evolution. Science,
        > the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (if none
        > else), disprove both the generation of life
        > (or any matter for that matter) from nothing
        > (1st law) AND this concept of evolving upward
        > ("improved ape") (2nd law).
        >
        > Don DeLong

        1) "God's written word": This is a circular
        argument: such-and-such book says it is God's
        word, therefore God exists and this book is
        true.

        The Koran also says it is God's word; does that
        mean the Koran is true? The Book of Mormon says
        that it is God's word; does that mean the Book of
        Mormon is true?

        By this same logic any book, even fictional stories,
        can make any claim, therefore, according to DeLong's
        reasoning, those books are "evidence" that the claims
        made in those books are true.

        2) The "miracle" of "evolution" -- two equivocation
        fallacies in one! Most people do not consider
        natural processes, whether snowflakes or biological
        evolution, to be "miracles"; and DeLong is here
        equating the beginning of Life and the beginning of
        the Universe with "evolution", which is false.

        3) 1st Law of Thermodynamics -- "argument from
        ignorance", better known as "god-of-the-gaps";
        i.e., if we don't have a scientific explanation
        for it, God musta did it!

        DeLong also continues on with his fallacy of
        equivocation -- biological evolution and biogenesis
        are two different things. Regardless of how or
        when Life began, you can observe the processes of
        biological evolution taking place in existing
        populations of organisms *right now*.

        4) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- argument from
        DeLong's OWN ignorance; the 2nd Law DOES NOT
        preclude biological evolution. Life on Earth is not
        a "closed" system, it is constantly gaining energy
        from the Sun and converting that energy, through
        photosynthesis, into a form usable by Life. A very
        simple example is an oak tree: from a single acorn,
        with the addition of sunlight, comes a large, complex
        structure that produces many more acorns, which become
        separate, sunlight-converting, complex structures on
        their own, which become a forest...

        In addition to DeLong having it completely wrong
        about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, he is also
        showing an utter lack of common sense in appealing
        to it. DeLong, do you think scientists aren't
        aware of the 2nd Law? Do you think if the 2nd Law
        really did deny the possibility of biological
        evolution, they wouldn't have figured that out by
        now? Do you think the worldwide atheist conspiracy
        is powerful enough to keep a secret like that hidden?

        Yet here DeLong is, a complete scientific ignoramus,
        pretending he understands something about science
        that science itself has somehow been overlooking
        for the past couple of hundred years.

        Here is what's going on: DeLong is sure the answer
        is "2". Yet he keeps getting a failing grade on
        his math homework. He blames that on the teacher,
        because he knows the answer is "2". The teacher,
        according to him, just isn't asking the right
        question. She asks, "What is 3 + 1?" DeLong writes
        "2". She asks, "What is 4 - 3?" DeLong writes "2".
        She asks, "What is the square root of 2,510?" DeLong
        writes "2". He doesn't care what the problem is,
        "2" is the answer and that's what he is going to
        write down.

        Now, I believe in God and Jesus and I believe that
        the Bible is true. But when people like DeLong get
        on the internet and make themselves look foolish
        with arguments for the existence of God such as
        DeLong has used here, it just makes Christians look
        stupid.

        And when people like DeLong do these things, and
        refuse to be corrected for their errors, and attack
        anyone who attempts to correct them, and refuse to
        even try to defend their statements in an open
        forum, it makes Christians not only look stupid but
        extremely hypocritical as well -- DeLong has no use
        for the truth.

        Such is DeLong's concept of "Christian evidences".

        DeLong, will you "come out" and talk about these
        things? I think not!


        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism


        P.S. below Robert's message...


        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
        "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Having been run off from David (not "David")
        > P. Brown's ContendingFTF list, Daniel Coe and
        > Don DeLong are trying to resurrect Don DeLong's
        > previously deceased ChristianEvidences list.
        >
        > That show can be viewed at:
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianevidences/
        >
        > If it works, the Oral Roberts organization has
        > some job openings for them in Tulsa, OK!
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Robert Baty


        Maybe it was just "apparently" dead.
      • w_w_c_l
        I m posting this again since Don DeLong is now over on the ContendingFTF list making the same erroneous claims about the Laws of Thermodynamics. ... Don DeLong
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 1 9:25 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm posting this again since Don DeLong is now
          over on the ContendingFTF list making the same
          erroneous claims about the Laws of Thermodynamics.

          --------------------------------------


          Don DeLong uses circular reasoning, god-of-the-gaps,
          equivocation fallacies and his own ignorance of science
          to "prove" the existence of God!

          Also displays a lack of ordinary common sense:

          from:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianevidences/message/271


          Re: Lessons from implication.


          --- In christianevidences@yahoogroups.com,
          "Daniel Coe" <preacherdhc@...> wrote:
          >
          >> Brother Don, and List,
          >>
          >> What amazes me about the atheists is that they
          >> fail to realize that they have no choice bu to
          >> believe in miracles, at leat one!!!
          >>
          >> Atheists fail to realize that they MUST concede
          >> to the fact that a spontaneous generation of life
          >> had to be at the root of all life as they assert.
          >>
          >> Atheists have to accept that life had to
          >> spontaneously generate itself from that which was
          >> lifeless. They cannot deny this, even given their
          >> own position.
          >>
          >> Thus it makes far better sense to accept the miracle
          >> of and God said...and it was so.." Than to believe
          >> the silliness of the miracle of spontaneous
          >> generation of life from lifelessness.
          >>
          >> Daniel Coe

          This is the classic god-of-the-gaps argument that
          Daniel Denham has been accusing me of holding to,
          in spite of the numerous times we (Todd and I) have
          pointed out to him that god-of-the-gaps is a logical
          fallacy.

          Let's see if Daniel Denham recognizes this logical
          fallacy coming straight from Daniel Coe and Don DeLong!


          For Don DeLong replies:

          > Daniel,
          >
          > Absolutely. Aside from the fact that there is
          > evidence (God's written Word) for the miracle
          > (the setting aside of the "natural laws") of
          > creation.
          >
          >
          > There is NO evidence for the miracle (again,
          > "natural laws" would have to be set aside) of
          > evolution.
          >
          > In fact, there is no "natural law" that will
          > even uphold the precepts of evolution. Science,
          > the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (if none
          > else), disprove both the generation of life
          > (or any matter for that matter) from nothing
          > (1st law) AND this concept of evolving upward
          > ("improved ape") (2nd law).
          >
          > Don DeLong

          1) "God's written word": This is a circular
          argument: such-and-such book says it is God's
          word, therefore God exists and this book is
          true.

          The Koran also says it is God's word; does that
          mean the Koran is true? The Book of Mormon says
          that it is God's word; does that mean the Book of
          Mormon is true?

          By this same logic any book, even fictional stories,
          can make any claim, therefore, according to DeLong's
          reasoning, those books are "evidence" that the claims
          made in those books are true.

          2) The "miracle" of "evolution" -- two equivocation
          fallacies in one! Most people do not consider
          natural processes, whether snowflakes or biological
          evolution, to be "miracles"; and DeLong is here
          equating the beginning of Life and the beginning of
          the Universe with "evolution", which is false.

          3) 1st Law of Thermodynamics -- "argument from
          ignorance", better known as "god-of-the-gaps";
          i.e., if we don't have a scientific explanation
          for it, God musta did it!

          DeLong also continues on with his fallacy of
          equivocation -- biological evolution and biogenesis
          are two different things. Regardless of how or
          when Life began, you can observe the processes of
          biological evolution taking place in existing
          populations of organisms *right now*.

          4) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- argument from
          DeLong's OWN ignorance; the 2nd Law DOES NOT
          preclude biological evolution. Life on Earth is not
          a "closed" system, it is constantly gaining energy
          from the Sun and converting that energy, through
          photosynthesis, into a form usable by Life. A very
          simple example is an oak tree: from a single acorn,
          with the addition of sunlight, comes a large, complex
          structure that produces many more acorns, which become
          separate, sunlight-converting, complex structures on
          their own, which become a forest...

          In addition to DeLong having it completely wrong
          about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, he is also
          showing an utter lack of common sense in appealing
          to it. DeLong, do you think scientists aren't
          aware of the 2nd Law? Do you think if the 2nd Law
          really did deny the possibility of biological
          evolution, they wouldn't have figured that out by
          now? Do you think the worldwide atheist conspiracy
          is powerful enough to keep a secret like that hidden?

          Yet here DeLong is, a complete scientific ignoramus,
          pretending he understands something about science
          that science itself has somehow been overlooking
          for the past couple of hundred years.

          Here is what's going on: DeLong is sure the answer
          is "2". Yet he keeps getting a failing grade on
          his math homework. He blames that on the teacher,
          because he knows the answer is "2". The teacher,
          according to him, just isn't asking the right
          question. She asks, "What is 3 + 1?" DeLong writes
          "2". She asks, "What is 4 - 3?" DeLong writes "2".
          She asks, "What is the square root of 2,510?" DeLong
          writes "2". He doesn't care what the problem is,
          "2" is the answer and that's what he is going to
          write down.

          Now, I believe in God and Jesus and I believe that
          the Bible is true. But when people like DeLong get
          on the internet and make themselves look foolish
          with arguments for the existence of God such as
          DeLong has used here, it just makes Christians look
          stupid.

          And when people like DeLong do these things, and
          refuse to be corrected for their errors, and attack
          anyone who attempts to correct them, and refuse to
          even try to defend their statements in an open
          forum, it makes Christians not only look stupid but
          extremely hypocritical as well -- DeLong has no use
          for the truth.

          Such is DeLong's concept of "Christian evidences".

          DeLong, will you "come out" and talk about these
          things? I think not!


          Rick Hartzog
          Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
        • Robert Baty
          Rick, Don s Go to hell approach is a real winner! I think we ve recently talked about that gimmick as far as these discussions go. Perhaps Daniel Denham, if
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 1 9:35 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Rick,

            Don's "Go to hell" approach is a real winner!

            I think we've recently talked about that gimmick as far as these discussions go.

            Perhaps Daniel Denham, if he simply took the day off, is letting Don sub for him!

            Looks like Don is following in Daniel's footsteps quite well and they are both doing a good job of convincing us that they are headed where they propose to send Todd, you and me!

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • w_w_c_l
            ... Robert, I m afraid Todd might have heard that one already. On the ContendingFTF list, Don DeLong, apparently ...
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 1 9:57 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Rick,
              >
              > Don's "Go to hell" approach is a real winner!


              Robert,

              I'm afraid Todd might have heard that one already.

              On the ContendingFTF list, Don DeLong, "apparently"
              thinking he has somewhat to offer, offers this:

              > Daniel,
              >
              > I too would like to think that Todd is not in control.
              > Unfortunately I know better and know that he can control
              > his thoughts and that is precisely why he will burn in
              > Hell for ALL eternity if he does not change before it is
              > eternally too late.
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/7361

              Maybe DeLong hasn't been paying attention.

              Hey, DeLong! Didn't you read what Todd said about
              having been brought up in a Church of Christ and
              finding out later that they had been lying to him
              all his life about the age of the Earth?

              You have children, too, don't you?


              > Daniel,
              >
              > By some of the comments he and the "evolution bunch"
              > have been making, it is certain that their thoughts
              > are brought about by chemical processes alright. I am
              > just not convinced that the chemicals used to bring
              > about such thoughts are all together legal.
              >
              > Don DeLong
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/7362

              This from a grown man who is so out of touch with reality
              that he actually thinks the Earth is only a few thousand
              years old. A guy that believes wood turns into coal in
              about 20 years, underneath houses in California. Who
              thinks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means that biological
              evolution is impossible.

              A guy who dives under the table every time the screen
              door slams.

              Come on out, DeLong, and let's talk about things! You
              seem to be having a little problem adjusting to life
              on this planet.


              Rick Hartzog
              Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism



              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Rick,
              >
              > Don's "Go to hell" approach is a real winner!
              >
              > I think we've recently talked about that gimmick as far as these
              discussions go.
              >
              > Perhaps Daniel Denham, if he simply took the day off, is letting
              Don sub for him!
              >
              > Looks like Don is following in Daniel's footsteps quite well and
              they are both doing a good job of convincing us that they are headed
              where they propose to send Todd, you and me!
              >
              > Sincerely,
              > Robert Baty
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.