Fw: Why Terry Benton pretended Todd Greene Went Silent
- -----------Forwarded Message-------------
From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Why Terry Benton pretended Todd Greene Went Silent
Geeze, you point out the man's fallacy to him explicitly, and - as usual - it goes 58 miles over his head. This is the incompetence of creationist rhetoric we have to deal with all the time.
We see Terry Benton still pretending that I did not make the following post:
He also obviously isn't able to comprehend the following:
First of all,
I personally have specifically addressed the exact point entailed by HIS proposition (which - keep this in mind - he has thrown in all along as a red herring) many times before: There are many, many, many things about reality that are not known about in science.
When we don't know something, we don't know something.
The God-of-the-gaps argument is a fallacy.
The thrust of Terry's argument is irrational: He is apparently trying to argue "Scientists don't know how the universe to came into existence, THEREFORE scientists don't know that the universe has been in existence longer than 6,000 years", and/or "Scientists don't know how the first biological organisms came about, THEREFORE scientists don't know anything about how biological organisms may or may not evolve after they have come into existence."
Neither one of these arguments is a rational argument.
They just don't make any sense.
The truth of the matter is that young earth creationism is a religious dogma, not science, and it is also an idea that has been scientifically proved to be false. It is ironic that in demonstration of the rhetorical trickery creationists, and especially young earth creationists, love so much they even use their games of getting people to sign on to propositions that are themselves false designed to misrepresent and make fa lse insinuations about those they disagree with.
Creationist rhetoric is permeated with misinformation, misrepresentation, and distorting, and young earth creationist rhetoric is the most virulent strain of this.
None of Terry's red herring is going to change the fact that Michael Behe and Michael Denton are theistic EVOLUTIONISTS, and some creationists, due to their incompetent ignorance of the subjects they regurgitate their nonsense rhetoric about, screw up by making incoherent statements based on pretending that Behe and Denton are not theistic EVOLUTIONISTS.
If they could get their facts straight, at least they could improve their rhetoric, but the fact that they not only have such bad problems getting their facts straight, but that they also deliberately refuse to correct their errors, and deliberately try to sweep their errors under the rug to ignore them, when they are pointed out to them, and instead use all manner of rhetorical tricks designed to run away from their problems and refuse to deal with them demonstrates the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of their attitudes.
We do have to thank Terry for his demonstration of this.
- Todd Greene
--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry W. Benton" <terrywbenton@...> wrote:
> Why Todd Greene Went Silent
> On My Challenge
> > Resolved: There is testable
>> evidence and proof that the
>> universe and life can and did
>> come into existence in an all
>> natural way.
> > Affirmed: Todd Greene
> > Denied: Terry W. Benton
> Todd, does this mean that you are
> now ready to affirm and prove the
> above proposition?
> You are still silent about this and I
> need to know that you are not going
> to avoid the proposition, or if you are
> going to affirm the proposition, when
> are you going to start presenting the
> testable evidence and proof that the
> universe and life can and did come into
> existence in an all natural way.
> This will tell if your "pseudo-science"
> is any better than mine.
> If we find you cannot present such
> testable evidence, then we can
> determine that the "science" class and
> teachers really have areas that they
> should not be commenting upon at all
> because the proof is not there. I'm fine
> with God having a role and letting His
> testimony over-ride any empty unproven > theory of evolution origins. If "science"
> is going to the testable and repeatable
> things in evidence, then origins gets
> NO SCIENCE data and all the data is
> testimony from God. If science cannot
> prove the above proposition, then it is
> pseudo-science to talk about it in the
> science class. Stick to science as far as
> testable evidence can take you, but
> realize there is other evidence that
> deals with the origins of the Universe
> and Life. I can tell you where the very
> best eyewitness testimony can be found
> for what happened and science cannot
> disprove it.
> So far, you are still silent about the
> proposition Todd, and the longer
> you stay silent, the more it appears
> that you cannot handle it. That is OK,
> but you need to admit that you cannot
> provide the evidence for that
> proposition. Otherwise you are just a
> phony who claims that others are willing > to tell lies and accept lies You have
> accepted the lie that the universe and
> life can and did happen by natural
> chemical processes.
> Terry W. Benton
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]