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

Evidence, all right, but evidence of what?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 of 5 , Jul 1, 2007
      • 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 3 of 5 , Jul 1, 2007
        • 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 4 of 5 , Jul 1, 2007
          • 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.