PDA

View Full Version : The argument from non-X



Fyshhed
November 1st, 2004, 07:52 PM
*NOTE*
This thread was split from its original: The Wisdom of "Dr." Kent Hovind (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1845). This thread discusses the validity (or invalidity) of the "negative argument" supporting (or not supporting) one's position.

-- Apok --

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

You can bash away at X all day if you want. Unless you have a substantial base of proof for an alternate truth, your argument has to prove non-X to be successful. Which Hovind does not.


Besides, phony science is so lame. They need to mandate an overview of genetics and cytology on a national level, so people don't just accept this riduculous spray of crap-drivel as fact. Shame on you two for believing this nonsense.

Neener, :P

Apokalupsis
November 1st, 2004, 08:08 PM
Actually, Hovind (and I'm not a suppoter btw) does provide many positive arguments FOR creation. Of course, he knocks down evolution quite a bit as well. And in a case where we have only 2 possibilities...

Either our world and all life in it were caused through natural means, or through intelligent design, by refuting one, it IS support of the other.

Person A: I have an animal...it is either mammal that fetches sticks, barks, is known as "man's best friend", wags his tail, can be used for hunting or guard duty and weighs about 80lbs....or...it swims in a small glass bowl, weighs about 3oz, is gold in color, eats flakes that I drop onto the surface of the water, there is a snack named after it, it doesn't make any noise, and it has small fins. It is either a dog, or a goldfish. Those are the only 2 possibilities of animals that I have.

Person B: Well, I've been to your house, I know you are alergic to dog and cat dander, you never buy any bags of food, you don't like animals that require much attention, you don't like playing with animals, you don't have any animals that require companionship or much maintenance, and you don't have any pets whatsoever with legs or shed. You do like the water and you like fish. Thus, your pet, is a goldfish.

It's called deductive reasoning. If there it is the case of X or Y, and it is non-X, then it must be Y. So yes, attacking a claim of X, can be support of Y, the only possible alternative. And that is exactly what the issue is here...either the universe and all things in it were caused without a higher power (or the supernatural), or it was caused/created by a higher power (supernatural). It's an either/or. Destroy 1, and the other is supported by result.

Dionysus
November 1st, 2004, 08:13 PM
God and cat dander? :lol:

Meng Bomin
November 1st, 2004, 08:17 PM
Either our world and all life in it were caused through natural means, or through intelligent design, by refuting one, it IS support of the other. There is a difference between creation and intelligent design. If one were to show that the usiverse was intelligently designed, that would not tell me whether or not young earth creationism, old-earth creationism, guided naturalism, or the creation myths of different religion than Christianity is the case.

Well, I've been to your house, I know you are alergic to god and cat dander... That dang god dander!

Apokalupsis
November 1st, 2004, 08:29 PM
Intelligent design would be any creation theory, doesn't matter if it is YE, OE, or otherwise. The issue is: Creation (intelligent design/supernatural) vs Evolution (natural). It's either or.

Other cases can be made for the timeframe involved (that would addres YE vs OE).


And yes, even God sheds, you didn't know that? It's a pretty dry climate up there...

Dionysus
November 1st, 2004, 08:34 PM
Are you SURE there's not an agnostic version? Evolution is nothing more than "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations" or put simply, bilogical changes over time. This description doesn't speak to origins at all.

I think it is a mistake to say "either or". I don't think it can be said for certain either way. Any absolute declaration to either position is a statement of faith.

Meng Bomin
November 1st, 2004, 08:35 PM
Intelligent design would be any creation theory, doesn't matter if it is YE, OE, or otherwise. I know, but my point was that it was not a positive argument for young-earth creationism, to which I believe he subscibes.

And yes, even God sheds, you didn't know that? It's a pretty dry climate up there... Well I'll be damned (literally if the Christian god exists). I never imagine a furry deity.

Apokalupsis
November 1st, 2004, 08:40 PM
Are you SURE there's not an agnostic version? Evolution is nothing more than "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations" or put simply, bilogical changes over time. This description doesn't speak to origins at all.

I think it is a mistake to say "either or". I don't think it can be said for certain either way. Any absolute declaration to either position is a statement of faith.
You just described evolution. Either these plants and animals have their origins in the supernatural or the natural. You just stated the natural.

Dionysus
November 1st, 2004, 08:44 PM
You just described evolution. Either these plants and animals have their origins in the supernatural or the natural. You just stated the natural.

So? Show me how the UN-natural fits in.

Apokalupsis
November 1st, 2004, 08:44 PM
I know, but my point was that it was not a positive argument for young-earth creationism, to which I believe he subscibes.
While I don't necesssarily agree with him, he HAS put up arguments for a YE. Something about a hydro-canopy? There is more than just that one though. Regardless, when one speaks of Creation, it generally includes any theory that subscribes to a "creator" as the source of origins, as opposed to evolution which is said to speak of a natural origin.



Well I'll be damned (literally if the Christian god exists). I never imagine a furry deity.
Don't buy into the usual imagery propaganda...he looks much more like a Wookie than what he seems in famous paintings.

HermanPetri
November 1st, 2004, 08:46 PM
Apok, you are presenting a false dichotomy.

It is entirely possible to support BOTH evolution AND intelligent design. Many Christians believe that evolution was guided by an intelligent God. In fact, the Catholic Church formally accepts this union of the two viewpoints.

Furthermore, it is scientifically impossible to disprove evolution by intelligent design and it is also impossible to prove it.

If you believe Hovind provides some sort of proof which supports Creationism to the exclusion of any other working model, then please do post such claims. I promise to explore them in detail.

Dionysus
November 1st, 2004, 08:50 PM
While I don't necesssarily agree with him, he HAS put up arguments for a YE. Something about a hydro-canopy?

He was referring to the "firmament" described in Genesis. He got the idea from Carl Baugh who I happened to meet and hear speak around 1986. He proposed that before the flood the earth was surrounded by a water canopy that allowed music from Heaven to be transmitted via WGOD radio waves to the occupants of earth*. Of course, his theory that he claimed was duplicated to Biblical specifications was based largely on misapplication and misinterpretation of atmospheric studies.


*He also supported 9 foot humans and fire-breathing dragons in this same presentation.

Apokalupsis
November 1st, 2004, 08:58 PM
You are referring to Theistic Evolution. But are incorrect as to what I am suggesting. Even theistic evolution requires a supernatural designer. If we are examing origin science, there are only 2 possibilities...a designer, or a natural cause. All atheists will believe that it was a natural cause...all theists will believe it is a designer. HOW that designer created, is a matter of contention among theists. There are many views of creation, some do believe that God used evolution to create the universe, but do not accept that the universe was caused naturally.

To refute evolution, one merely needs to attack its claims...like all claims made. Or, one may also support its opposite, creationism. Hovind happens to be a Young Earther. His arguments are presented in such a way that they oppose the claims of an old universe. In that context, the issue is either:

Young Earth/Universe Designed by Creator vs Old Earth/Universe Caused through natural means.

You have to put into context the argument first. It isn't : Any and all arguments/possibilities for Creation vs any/all arguments/possiblities for evolution.

It is SPECIFICALLY (for the instance concerning Hovind) : YE Designed vs OE Naturally Caused.

There is no false dichotomy here.

As far as Hovind's arguments for a young earth designed, they can be found on his site as I recall. That site has changed quite a bit since I last visited it: http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

I KNOW that he put up arguments for a young earth, because I've heard him personally speak. I was an audience member several years ago.

However, not being involved in the CvE debate for quite some time, and also leaning towards the OE rather than the YE, I do not remember specifics. I can only tell you that he did indeed, argue in favor of YE, not just against OE.

KevinBrowning
November 1st, 2004, 09:34 PM
Just as soon as you check all the links I provided, Kev. ;)

I have checked most of those sites, GP, and if some of the things on them are true, that simply means he is a sinner like all of us, and fallible, like all of us. Personally I still agree with most of what I have actually heard him say in the two videos I've watched. Thank you for the links though, I like to know both sides of the story, when it comes to any popular figure.

Dionysus
November 1st, 2004, 09:49 PM
I have checked most of those sites, GP, and if some of the things on them are true, that simply means he is a sinner like all of us, and fallible, like all of us.

So? If even half of what is said is true it speaks to his ignorance of science and his obvious bias towards non-Christians.


Personally I still agree with most of what I have actually heard him say in the two videos I've watched.

I watched the Shermer video and I have to say that if you think Hovind had the intellectual upper-hand in this debate, I'm not surprised if you also believe Bush did well in the first debate with Kerry. :lol:


Thank you for the links though, I like to know both sides of the story, when it comes to any popular figure.

That's a healthy approach. Good on ya!

Vorketh
November 2nd, 2004, 04:30 AM
I would like to propose an agnostic approach to this topic - I don't know.

Seriously though... it is fully POSSIBLE that science and religion are in fact intertwined. I mean, if God created all, he created the laws of physics, and, to be a JUST GOD, which he is, he would have to abide by his laws. However, he can do funny things to fudge the results, like, oh say, bring things together to create an environment where life can be sustained (making the earth) and creating an environment where people will naturally, eventually, evolve. I mean, he IS God, right? So time doesn't really matter to him. He could be there all eternity egging on the development of people through physical means and it wouldn't matter to him. So why do many theists try to put a timetable to God's influence on the planet? Maybe I'm being vague, so I'll restate what I'm getting at:

Evolution is a process that science has essentially proven to have taken place. Through discoveries on our planet of previous life forms, it leads to plausible explanations of an evolutionary process. Thus, there is a possibility that God intelligently designed this evolutionary process, and oversaw it. That, Apok, is both natural and supernatural. The natural is the evolution part of things, the supernatural being the deity looking over it.

So, what does it all add up to? I don't know - hence, this is the agnostic approach.

Thank you, Thank you.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 07:20 AM
So? Show me how the UN-natural fits in.
...this doesn't make any sense. You are the one that is claiming that your description here fits both the supernatural and the natural. It doesn't, it only describes the natural.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 07:24 AM
You sure about that? What does the bible say that Man is made from? If I recall correctly, Man was made from the earth - literally clay - and God caused that clay to take human form. Indeed, even the animals rose up from the earth. Even the Bible says that God guided a process by which the living things were formed from natural materials.
While it does say that God created Man in this manner, all other life (if taken literally and not metaphorically) was created in their full form, not through evolution. This however, lends nothing to our discussion here.



I know you must mean this in jest - but if we are supposed to have been made in God's image, wouldn't we have been furry all over in the beginning. Hmmmmmm.
God's image as in: ability to reason, feel, having a soul, etc... Not a physical image. Since God does not have a physical body...if it were meant to be taken literally, we all would have the exact same attributes of God, which of course, we don't.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 07:33 AM
If Theistic Evolution and the Theory of Evolution differ only in whether or not a god is directing the process then they are scientifically indistinguishable from each other.
Close. While both address the issue of evolving from one state to another, ONLY Theistic Evolution addresses the issue of first origins, that is, from nothing to something. Natural Evolution cannot address this. Can that be proven through science? No, of course not. But that's not the point. The issue is the 2 possibilities being put forth against one another...either God created matter and used evolution to shape it, or matter was always there, or it magically appeared out of thin air, and evolution shaped it.


Theistic Evolution explains the universe's beginning. Evolution continues to work as a testable theory regardless of whether a god directs it or not. Your polarization of that issue is the pervue of philosophy NOT science.
Whoa...hold the phone here. Let's get back on track here. We are NOT debating which theory/science is correct and which is bunk. The issue here is that there are 2 and only 2 possibilities. Either God played a role in the creation of the universe, or he did not. Nothing more is being addressed here.

The reason WHY this is being addressed, is because it was said earlier that disproving X is not support for the opposition...and that simply is not true. If we have only 2 possibilities, and 1 is refuted, the other has gained support. This was discussed a few posts back.



If you wish to concentrate on the facts regarding Young Earth vs. Old Earth then we shall do so.
No, this is not a creation/evolution debate.


But first you must accept that qualifying each as specifically "Naturalistic" or "Designed" is not honest.
I do NOT accept that...it IS honest. It hasn't been shown otherwise. If God had a role in the universe's creation, then it is DESIGNED. If he did not, it is NATURALISTIC.


If an old earth can be designed through Theistic Evolution (by a Creator), AND a young earth can also be designed (by a Creator) then you have failed to demonstrate the very dichotomy you wish to enforce.
Wrong. If God had a hand in the design of the universe, it is designed. And remember the context of the argument. Hovind argues from a YE perspective. So the specific context here is: YE Designed vs OE Evolved through natural means.

If God didn't have role here, and YE is disproven, then this is support for OE Evolved. If OE Evolved is debunked, then YE Designed is supported.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 07:40 AM
Thus, there is a possibility that God intelligently designed this evolutionary process, and oversaw it. That, Apok, is both natural and supernatural. The natural is the evolution part of things, the supernatural being the deity looking over it.

So, what does it all add up to? I don't know - hence, this is the agnostic approach.

Thank you, Thank you.
That never addresses the issue of:

C = creation (YE, or theistic evolution, in the case of Hovind's argumentation which was objected to earlier in this thread, it is YE)
E = Naturalistic Evolution

Either C or E.
Not E.
Therefore C.

This is a disjunctive syllogism. It's a simple syllogism that shows how refuting one position, the other position is supported when there are only 2 positions.

In the context of what is being discussed here, there are ONLY 2 positions. An objection arose to Hovind's argumentation refuting E. A poster said that merely because he argues non-E, C (YE) is not supported, and THAT is absolutely false. This is elementary logic.

Meng Bomin
November 2nd, 2004, 07:51 AM
Close. While both address the issue of evolving from one state to another, ONLY Theistic Evolution addresses the issue of first origins, that is, from nothing to something. Natural Evolution cannot address this. That is because there are hypotheseses in science similar to the hypothesis of Theistic Evolution. There are explanations for abiogenesis, but you are right, they are not part of the Theory of Evolution.

An objection arose to Hovind's argumentation refuting E. A poster said that merely because he argues non-E, C (YE) is not supported, and THAT is absolutely false. This is elementary logic. C=/=YE. That is your error. C is a large set, and YE is a part of that set. However, as pointed out earlier OEC falls into C as does Theistic Evolution, neither of wrhich are YE.

On the other hand, Hovind has not refuted evolution, so we cannot even make the conclusion over whether E or C is true.

Vorketh
November 2nd, 2004, 07:56 AM
God's image as in: ability to reason, feel, having a soul, etc... Not a physical image. Since God does not have a physical body...if it were meant to be taken literally, we all would have the exact same attributes of God, which of course, we don't.

What started as a joke will now turn serious, but since it is not the topic on this thread, see the thread: Corpus Deus (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?p=53114#post53114)

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 08:04 AM
C=/=YE. That is your error. C is a large set, and YE is a part of that set. However, as pointed out earlier OEC falls into C as does Theistic Evolution, neither of wrhich are YE.

On the other hand, Hovind has not refuted evolution, so we cannot even make the conclusion over whether E or C is true.
Wrong. You are not understanding the nature of disjunctive syllogisms. To illustrate my oint, I'll merely ask:

What is Hovind's position on the C vs E debate?


We are not talking about ALL possibilities in the debate, we are discussing a VERY specific position. That VERY specific position and its argumentation was objected to previously...THAT is what is being discussed here.

So...what do you think that [Hovind's] position is?

Slipnish
November 2nd, 2004, 10:08 AM
Intelligent design would be any creation theory, doesn't matter if it is YE, OE, or otherwise. The issue is: Creation (intelligent design/supernatural) vs Evolution (natural). It's either or.

No necessarily true, Apok. I for one, like the Creative Design/Evolution solution. God created it all through naturalisitic means that we are just begninng to study and understand.

I find that God is quite capable of using "naturalistic" means to accomplish His goals.

OE, YE, and ID do NOT follow main stream scientific principles for the most part, though I will take it as a given that such beings are out there.

For the record, Hovind is a joke and his "science" is deserving of being quoted only in the funny papers.


Other cases can be made for the timeframe involved (that would addres YE vs OE).

I suppose this statement supports my position as well.

Slipnish
November 2nd, 2004, 10:12 AM
Close. While both address the issue of evolving from one state to another, ONLY Theistic Evolution addresses the issue of first origins, that is, from nothing to something. Natural Evolution cannot address this. Can that be proven through science? No, of course not. But that's not the point. The issue is the 2 possibilities being put forth against one another...either God created matter and used evolution to shape it, or matter was always there, or it magically appeared out of thin air, and evolution shaped it.

Not matter, but perhaps energy was always there. Truth of the matter is, evolution does not address the issue of biogenesis as you have stated. The two fields are NOT the same endeavor. Much like rocket science and bilogy.



Whoa...hold the phone here. Let's get back on track here. We are NOT debating which theory/science is correct and which is bunk. The issue here is that there are 2 and only 2 possibilities. Either God played a role in the creation of the universe, or he did not. Nothing more is being addressed here.

The reason WHY this is being addressed, is because it was said earlier that disproving X is not support for the opposition...and that simply is not true. If we have only 2 possibilities, and 1 is refuted, the other has gained support. This was discussed a few posts back.

But you are giving a false dichotomy in your previous post, which I addressed above. The issue is not evolution or creation. The two points can be bonded and followed by those of a scientific and theologic nature.


I do NOT accept that...it IS honest. It hasn't been shown otherwise. If God had a role in the universe's creation, then it is DESIGNED. If he did not, it is NATURALISTIC.
I think we could argue semantics over this one, but I don't see the point. For now, as definitions, I can accept this as nomenclature for the two sides.

HermanPetri
November 2nd, 2004, 11:16 AM
Let's simplify things a bit. Is there any available objective means of verifying that a supernatural being shaped the formation of life on earth? No. None. Zip. Nada. Not a one. Zilch. Zero. And currently we also do not have the means of verifying that natural abiogenesis created the first life.


While both address the issue of evolving from one state to another, ONLY Theistic Evolution addresses the issue of first origins, that is, from nothing to something. Natural Evolution cannot address this.This is disingenious. At its present development, the theory of evolution does not address first origins, true. The scientific field of abiogenesis does however and if sufficiently developed could be incorporated into the theory of evolution if it proves itself. Of course the methodology of abiogenesis can be tested and simulated, but the origin theory of Theistic Evolution cannot.


Can that be proven through science? No, of course not. But that's not the point.So it isn't important for the claims to be able to be proven through factual investigation?


The issue is the 2 possibilities being put forth against one another...either God created matter and used evolution to shape it,Which cannot be proved.

or matter was always there,Which cannot be proved.

or it magically appeared out of thin air, and evolution shaped it.Which cannot be proved.


We are NOT debating which theory/science is correct and which is bunk. The issue here is that there are 2 and only 2 possibilities. Either God played a role in the creation of the universe, or he did not. Nothing more is being addressed here.Then anyone can say absolutely anything they want and will always be able to claim the remote possibility they are correct. We might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is pointless.


The reason WHY this is being addressed, is because it was said earlier that disproving X is not support for the opposition...and that simply is not true. If we have only 2 possibilities, and 1 is refuted, the other has gained support.Refuting Young Earth Creationism does NOT make evolution more correct. Refuting Evolution does NOT make YEC more correct. Disproving the evolutionary model does nothing to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Disproving the claim of a young earth does nothing to support the insistance that purely naturalistic origins created life without the involvement of a supernatural designer.


If God had a role in the universe's creation, then it is DESIGNED. If he did not, it is NATURALISTIC.But the scenarios in question have absolutely no possible means to demonstrate purely naturalistic or purely designed origins to the exclusion of the other. You can go on insisting that the polarity exists in textbook fashion, but here in the real world where we have to work with pesky things like facts and supporting evidence there will always be a significant measure of uncertainty on both counts.


And remember the context of the argument. Hovind argues from a YE perspective. So the specific context here is: YE Designed vs OE Evolved through natural means.I reject his (and your) assessment of the available models. So far the only data I have seen to support a young earth or to refute an old earth is the same data which is merely interpreted differently to arrive at just the opposite conclusion by the other side. You can debate whether or not the earth is young or you can debate whether or not the earth was designed - but neither supposition can ever completely prove or disprove the other.


If God didn't have role here, and YE is disproven, then this is support for OE Evolved. If OE Evolved is debunked, then YE Designed is supported.The creation of all life on earth is not a math puzzle. This is not a closed system with all variables defined. To insist that the argument presented is representative of logical approach is to ignore the possibility that a modified theory including previously unknown variables can still be useful.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 11:17 AM
No necessarily true, Apok. I for one, like the Creative Design/Evolution solution. God created it all through naturalisitic means that we are just begninng to study and understand.

I find that God is quite capable of using "naturalistic" means to accomplish His goals.
Again, you are not understanding the Creation position at all. There are various theories about the origins of our universe, that is a given. Some believe that a divine being was involved, some do not. Some believe that the universe is old, but Earth is young. Some believe both are young, some believe both are old.

In ALL instances where it is said that a divine being had his hand in the events, it is CREATION. Creation includes ANY possible option that includes ANY supernatural cause.

Also, remember the point of all of this...the argument is:

YE vs OE. Hovind says YE (his credentials or expertise is irrelevant here). The opposition position would be OE. OE would include God using evolution (thus playing a role), or naturalistic evolution (God not playing a role).

The objection was made earlier by a previous poster that simply because one attacks OE, it does not support YE. And that is absolutely, 100% WRONG.

If we have either YE (creation) or OE (evolution either through naturalistic or divine means) refutation of one, is support for the other. See info on disjunctive syllogisms above.

We are talking about a SPECIFIC argument here. We are talking about Hovind's argumentation or position. You MUST use this context to understand the original objection that was made.



For the record, Hovind is a joke and his "science" is deserving of being quoted only in the funny papers.
I could care less about Hovind's credentials and abilities. That is not what is being discussed in this side argument. What IS being discussed, is that by him refuting OE theories, it supports YE theories by default.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 11:19 AM
But you are giving a false dichotomy in your previous post, which I addressed above. The issue is not evolution or creation. The two points can be bonded and followed by those of a scientific and theologic nature.
NO. We are speaking of a SPECIFIC argument. We are speaking of Hovind's YE theory. It is YE vs OE. OE may include naturalistic or divine causes. Doesn't matter which. Hovind argues for Young Earth Creation. That is, all plants and animals were created as they are now. The opposition is OE, claiming that life evolved and was not created in the state that it is today.

Dionysus
November 2nd, 2004, 11:23 AM
...this doesn't make any sense. You are the one that is claiming that your description here fits both the supernatural and the natural. It doesn't, it only describes the natural.

I think that's the <i>point</i>, Apok. Your position seems to be very much 'us' or 'them' concerning evolution. Evolution is a science and as such its position is neither theistic nor atheistic. The only reason this is an issue is because Christians can't stand that it conflicts with a literal translation of Genesis (which you on many occasions have advised people not to do). Where do we draw the line? Should all fields of science factor in the supernatural? Should we have theistic biology? Theistic forensics? Should all medical procedures be modified so that prayer is required between each step?

Evolution is a <i>science</i>. It would reach the same conclusions whether God is factored in or not.

Do you see how useless the position of either/or is?

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 11:29 AM
Refuting Young Earth Creationism does NOT make evolution more correct. Refuting Evolution does NOT make YEC more correct. Disproving the evolutionary model does nothing to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
It most certainly does. If there are only 2 possibilities, YE or OE, if one is refuted, the other stands. This is ELEMENTARY LOGIC folks. It's called a simple disjunctive syllogism. I didn't create this wacky idea of a basic syllogism, it's been around for ages. And ANYONE who has ever taken a first year logic or philosophy course that covers syllogistic logis can attest to this.



I reject his (and your) assessment of the available models.
This is elementary, basic, kiddie stuff logic. How is it even REMOTELY possible, that when we have either/or, we have more options?

That's like saying: Are you pregnant or not pregnant? Answer: I like fish. It's absurd. There are not more than 2 possible options here. Either the earth is YOUNG, or it is OLD. if you disagree, please provide an alternative. Are you suggesting that it is "medium"? If so, is there ANY prominent philosopher, scientist, scholar, etc...who has argued this possiblity?


So far the only data I have seen to support a young earth or to refute an old earth is the same data which is merely interpreted differently to arrive at just the opposite conclusion by the other side. You can debate whether or not the earth is young or you can debate whether or not the earth was designed - but neither supposition can ever completely prove or disprove the other.
100% IRRELEVANT. This is not a debate as to which is correct, YE or OE. It isn't a battle of best evidence available. This side argument is a discussion of the EXISTENCE and application of the disjunctive syllogism that was objected to by a previous poster.



The creation of all life on earth is not a math puzzle. This is not a closed system with all variables defined. To insist that the argument presented is representative of logical approach is to ignore the possibility that a modified theory including previously unknown variables can still be useful.
WRONG. It is NOT a discussion about any evidence, it is the discussion of argumentation method. Whether the earth is young or old, whether God helped, or didn't...all irrelevant. The side argument here is the exercise of the disjunctive syllogism that for some reason, many people here do not believe exists. This is first year logic stuff guys...really. I expected more from certain posters here.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 11:31 AM
I think that's the <i>point</i>, Apok. Your position seems to be very much 'us' or 'them' concerning evolution. Evolution is a science and as such its position is neither theistic nor atheistic. The only reason this is an issue is because Christians can't stand that it conflicts with a literal translation of Genesis (which you on many occasions have advised people not to do). Where do we draw the line? Should all fields of science factor in the supernatural? Should we have theistic biology? Theistic forensics? Should all medical procedures be modified so that prayer is required between each step?

Evolution is a <i>science</i>. It would reach the same conclusions whether God is factored in or not.

Do you see how useless the position of either/or is?
Again, IRRELEVANT. If a YE Creationist shoots holes in OE Evolutionary theory, it is SUPPORT for the YE model. Likewise, if a OE Evolutionist debunks the YE Creation claims (such as Hovind's), it IS by default, SUPPORT for OE Evolution.

That is the ONLY point being made and addressed here. A few posters seem to erroneously believe that the only way to support something, is to offer positive support for the claim. And this is NOT true. You can offer negative evidence against the opposition, thus affirming your own position.

HermanPetri
November 2nd, 2004, 11:37 AM
All of the other stuff comes down to this one thing...


What IS being discussed, is that by him refuting OE theories, it supports YE theories by default.

And old earth is only opposed to a young earth and vice verse, but neither can make a ruling on the existence of supernatural design. Even if it should be proved that the earth is only 6,000 years old it would require a large-scale modification of the theory of evolution or the introduction of the possibility that life in a developed form was brought to earth after having already evolved on an older planet - but it does not categorically refute the possibility of purely naturalistic causes. And if it is definitively proved that the earth is some 4 billion years old, it cannot categorically refute the possibility that the evolution of life was directed by some supernatural being.

So the insistance that YoungEarth=creation=God exempts the validity of OldEarth=evolution=naturalistic is false. A young earth does not automatically support creation by a god nor does it automatically deny evolution by naturalistic means.

It is an argument I find no validity in and cannot subscribe to.

It may be best to move on at this point and actually attempt to discuss some of the claims of Hovind. If it should be found that his theory isn't even valid then this distraction has been moot and a waste of time.

HermanPetri
November 2nd, 2004, 11:51 AM
It most certainly does. If there are only 2 possibilities, YE or OE, if one is refuted, the other stands.WRONG
I said, "Disproving the evolutionary model does nothing to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old." And that is correct. The evolutionary model merely states that populations of organisms over a lengthy period of time change through modification into different species. Even if that model of evolution were proved wrong it would NOT CHANGE the findings of the previously unrelated field of geology which independently confirms that the earth is much much older than 6,000 years old.


This is elementary, basic, kiddie stuff logic. How is it even REMOTELY possible, that when we have either/or, we have more options?Because it was wrong to limit the argument to mere either/or scenarios in the first place.


That's like saying: Are you pregnant or not pregnant? Answer: I like fish. It's absurd. There are not more than 2 possible options here. Either the earth is YOUNG, or it is OLD.NO. What you are doing is asking, "Is the earth YOUNG or OLD?" and if the person answers "OLD" you assume they MUST believe in evolution but no god and if they say YOUNG you assume they MUST believe in Creation and God. This would be a false assumption.

Hovind created this false assumption by framing the argument in such a way that it leaves the audience no room to pick a third unrelated belief system. This is why the argument is not valid.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 11:57 AM
And old earth is only opposed to a young earth and vice verse, but neither can make a ruling on the existence of supernatural design.
A YE does. Since millions of years are required for Evolution, a OE is required. YE Creationists argue that God created the Earth AS it is now, and all beings on it, in the state that they are now.

There is NO evolutionary theory or evidence that supports the idea that macro-evolution can occur in a mere few thousand years. THUS, YE = supernatural.



It may be best to move on at this point and actually attempt to discuss some of the claims of Hovind. If it should be found that his theory isn't even valid then this distraction has been moot and a waste of time.
This thread will be split and put into the Logic Forum concerning the nature of basic, elementary syllogisms. This was not a distraction, but a rebuttal to a claim that one cannot support an argument by refuting the opposition. That is absolutely ridiculous and absolutely NO logic or philosophy prof or student would agree. One may as well take the position of "the law of noncontradiction isn't true, A can be both A and non-A at the same time in the same sense". It's an absurdity.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 12:07 PM
WRONG
I said, "Disproving the evolutionary model does nothing to support the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old." And that is correct.
Well, then here is where your confusion comes in. ;)

The original objection I had, was to Fysh (not you), who said:

You can bash away at X all day if you want. Unless you have a substantial base of proof for an alternate truth, your argument has to prove non-X to be successful. Which Hovind does not.
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showpost.php?p=53053&postcount=7


The evolutionary model merely states that populations of organisms over a lengthy period of time change through modification into different species.
Evolution has three areas of study: Biological, Geological, and Astronomical. Hovind argues against any and all things concerned with "evolution". Fysh says: Just because Hovind argues against all things evolution, that doesn't support his position that the Earth/Universe is YOUNG and was CREATED.

And THAT, is absolutely false.


Even if that model of evolution were proved wrong it would NOT CHANGE the findings of the previously unrelated field of geology which independently confirms that the earth is much much older than 6,000 years old.
We include geological evolution in "evolution".



Because it was wrong to limit the argument to mere either/or scenarios in the first place.
No it wasn't. That's absurd. It was a direct objection to Fysh's statement, which included only 2 possibilities in the first place. You are saying: It is correct to posit an argument with 2 variables, but incorrect to refute the said argument using the same variables. That's ridiculous.


NO. What you are doing is asking, "Is the earth YOUNG or OLD?" and if the person answers "OLD" you assume they MUST believe in evolution but no god and if they say YOUNG you assume they MUST believe in Creation and God. This would be a false assumption.
I haven't assumed anything. I've stayed on track with Fysh's statement. Either YE or OE. The subsets of OE are irrelevant.



Hovind created this false assumption by framing the argument in such a way that it leaves the audience no room to pick a third unrelated belief system. This is why the argument is not valid.
No he hasn't. It's either YE or OE. Many Theistic Evolutionists (OE) disagree with Hovind. With Hovind's argumentation it isn't: God involved vs God not involved...it is YE (which necessitates God's involvement because his claim is that all beings were created then in the form that they are seen in now...that REQUIRES divine intervention) vs OE (which can include ANY OE theory, divine or otherwise).

Dionysus
November 2nd, 2004, 12:12 PM
Did you forget about posting this?


Intelligent design would be any creation theory, doesn't matter if it is YE, OE, or otherwise. The issue is: Creation (intelligent design/supernatural) vs Evolution (natural). It's either or.

I was replying to this thought process in my last post.


I think that's the point, Apok. Your position seems to be very much 'us' or 'them' concerning evolution. Evolution is a science and as such its position is neither theistic nor atheistic. The only reason this is an issue is because Christians can't stand that it conflicts with a literal translation of Genesis (which you on many occasions have advised people not to do). Where do we draw the line? Should all fields of science factor in the supernatural? Should we have theistic biology? Theistic forensics? Should all medical procedures be modified so that prayer is required between each step?

Evolution is a science. It would reach the same conclusions whether God is factored in or not.

Do you see how useless the position of either/or is?

To which you said:


Again, IRRELEVANT....

I fail to see how my post was irrelevent. It addressed your thinking directly.

Also, I don't know what debate you watched, but in the one I watched Micheal Shermer said several times that evolution was not designed to disprove God. He said basically the same thing I did; that evolution is a neutral field of science. It is not some great battle between two conflicting religions as it is often made out to be. It's NOT either/or. Just because Hovind is involved in the debate does not make it either/or.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 12:29 PM
The reason why it is irrelevant, is because by definition, YE includes God in the formula. If it is YE (which includes God creating all beings in the state then, that they are found now), then it could not be OE (which requires millions of years of change).

God has entered the equation due to the nature of YE Theory. There is no YE w/o God.

Also, I didn't watch any of his interviews. I'm not debating science...that's not what is being discussed in this side argument. What IS being discussed, is the idea of the disjunctive syllogism proving Fysh's statement wrong (see above.).

Dionysus
November 2nd, 2004, 12:42 PM
I'm not debating science...that's not what is being discussed in this side argument. What IS being discussed, is the idea of the dysjunctive syllogism proving Fysh's statement wrong (see above.).

Ahh, I see. Sorry for the confusion. ;)

HermanPetri
November 2nd, 2004, 12:49 PM
This is truly pointless. I am trying to describe real world application and you are trying to describe textbook case study.

You and Hovind have redefined the term evolution to suit whichever aspect of the argument you wish to combat. If you mean GEOLOGY then say so, and be honest about it and admit that geological science had already concluded that the earth was much much older than 6,000 years before "biological" evolution ever became mainstream science and did so completely independent of the claims of descent with modification. If you mean COSMOLOGY then say so, and be honest about it and admit that cosmology has reached its conclusion about the age of the universe completely independent of research involving descent with modification.

But for now this line of argument is over as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of what you or Hovind insist proving one aspect of his claim (that the earth is young) does not automatically prove ALL of his claims ("God did it").

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 01:04 PM
This is truly pointless. I am trying to describe real world application and you are trying to describe textbook case study.
No, I'm describing ACTUAL logic and philosophy.



You and Hovind have redefined the term evolution to suit whichever aspect of the argument you wish to combat.
I've done no such thing. Also, I'm not a supporter of ANY kind of Hovind or his theories. The argument was first stated by Fysh, and it was objected to.


If you mean GEOLOGY then say so, and be honest about it and admit that geological science had already concluded that the earth was much much older than 6,000 years before "biological" evolution ever became mainstream science and did so completely independent of the claims of descent with modification.[/quotte]
Again, THIS speaks of science, NOT of logical discourse. LOGICAL DISCOURSE is what Fysh was speaking to. He was saying that to argue non-X, it does not prove X to be true or false. And that is incorrect. He made a statement concerning logic and proper debate...it was that statement (not science for either position) that was objected to by me. The reason for that was to show that IF Hovind can show that the Earth is young, it is evidence against Old Earth Theories (evolution), and IF he adequately refute Evolution, it is favorable and supportive of Young Earth Theories (all of which include a divine creator).

[quote] If you mean COSMOLOGY then say so, and be honest about it and admit that cosmology has reached its conclusion about the age of the universe completely independent of research involving descent with modification.
Same response as above. Mine was NEVER an argument concerned with specific evidences given from either side. It was concerned with the methodological approach to refutation and support of an argument. Fysh was of the position that Hovind MUST show support for YE (which he does btw, but Fysh didn't realize that), because arguing against Evolution (or OE), doesn't support YE. And this is wrong.



But for now this line of argument is over as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of what you or Hovind insist proving one aspect of his claim (that the earth is young) does not automatically prove ALL of his claims ("God did it").
Again, HOW MANY TIMES must I say this...I am NOT supporting a YE nor an OE. I'm not supporting Hovind, nor supporting his critics. I've made absolutely NO statements one way or the other. And I think this is the crux of the confusion. I am merely illustrating that one does NOT have to prove X in a position...one can attack non-X, taking the negative position, and this can support X in turn. THIS, is a basic, elementary logic and debate tactic. It is quite valid, and is applied often as an approach to an argument.

Hovind's claims and arguments could be 100% bunk for all I care. That is not the point. Evolution could be 100% bunk for all I care. THAT is not the issue here. The issue, are the valid approaches one may take to support a certain position. While Hovind's data and claims may be in check, his approach, IS NOT. It IS valid argumentation. What is to be examined, are the claims themselves. He does NOTHING wrong w/ attempting to refute evolution. By doing so, he DOES support YE Creation. The arguments themselves are weighed by the actual and true data and support they have. The approach he has taken, or method of argumentation, regardless of quality of evidence, is valid.

Dionysus
November 2nd, 2004, 01:09 PM
So what are you saying, Apok? :lol:

Meng Bomin
November 2nd, 2004, 01:12 PM
Fysh was of the position that Hovind MUST show support for YE (which he does btw, but Fysh didn't realize that), because arguing against Evolution (or OE), doesn't support YE. And this is wrong. No, it is correct. There are many possibilities for design, and YE is only one of them. You are saying that it is either Evolution or Creation and Creation = Young Earth Creationism. While it may be either Natural or Supernatural, the number of supernatural senarios means that arguing that evolution is false is not an argument for young earth creationism, but rather for creationism in general. It would be the same as arguing against evolution to say that Tony the Tiger created the Earth.

HermanPetri
November 2nd, 2004, 01:57 PM
You are defending Hovind's position that lack of evidence for the opposition equals evidence for his suppositions. Whether you believe such a position is valid from a debate viewpoint is meaningless. I could invent any damned story I'd like about how aliens brought fully evolved animals to a young earth from another much older world - and if the earth were proven to be only 6,000 years old I'd have just as much support for my argument (from your viewpoint) as he has and it would still be a naturalistic evolutionary model of life.

Not all claims are created equal. You always always ALWAYS place the greatest weight on actual supporting evidence for the proposition rather than lack of evidence from the opposition. This is how the world works.

Fyshhed
November 2nd, 2004, 03:57 PM
I still think that since one can place all the chemicals required for a basic cell in solution and zap it, you can produce an organic molecule within a membrane (simplest form of a cell) in the same manner that biogenesis predicts proves that it was possible. Whether or not that was the case in the first place is debatable, but it cannot be proven wrong without proving otherwise.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 04:40 PM
No, it is correct. There are many possibilities for design, and YE is only one of them. You are saying that it is either Evolution or Creation and Creation = Young Earth Creationism.
NO, I am NOT saying that. Please pay attention, I've stated my position several times now. For clarity sake, here is what is being said...

Hovind argues for a YE being specifically created by God. That is, all animals and plants, etc... were created in their full form as we see them today. That is ONE position of the argument.

The opposition to this, is OE. That's it...end of position here. Hovind has critics both from the OE Naturalistic and OE Theistic sort. His opposition includes ALL of OE (for simplicity's sake, both groups).

So, summary:

YE + God vs OE (+/- God).

Now...if Hovind argues against the opposition (OE +/- God), it is, through the use of a LOGICAL SYLLOGISM (known as a disjunctive), support for the alternative, which is YE (+ God).

Likewise, if the opposition argues against YE (+ God), it is support for OE (+/- God).

Now, I realize that you believe that one cannot argue in this manner...I suppose the ONLY way to prove that this IS valid argumentation, is to provide some textbook material for you, proving this very BASIC, most ELEMENTARY logical syllogism. I will dig out some old books, or find some sites that touch upon basic logic and post them for you.

You have to remember, the argument isn't "any YE possibility vs any OE possibility". It is a VERY, VERY specific argument that Hovind is engaged in. It is that of YE + God. The oppositional argument is simply OE (God could be at work here, or he may not...doesn't matter).

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 04:49 PM
You are defending Hovind's position that lack of evidence for the opposition equals evidence for his suppositions.
I most certainly am NOT. I am supporting the VALID reasoning of Hovind's arguments, in showing that the rebuttal of OE, is support for YE. He isn't saying there is lack of evidence, he is saying that the evidence presented is false, and he attempts to refute that. He is arguing non-X. See disjunctive syllogism above.


Whether you believe such a position is valid from a debate viewpoint is meaningless.
Hardly. Logic is ordered thought. If you do not have the basics of logic, if you cannot acknowledge logical laws, you cannot formulate a cogent argument.


I could invent any damned story I'd like about how aliens brought fully evolved animals to a young earth from another much older world - and if the earth were proven to be only 6,000 years old I'd have just as much support for my argument (from your viewpoint) as he has and it would still be a naturalistic evolutionary model of life.
Again...it is NOT about the evidence itself. It is the METHOD of argumenation at point here. Let's say for sake of the argument, that Hovind is a complete quack...he's a nutjob, all of his evidence is b.s. When we have a comparison of evidence that supports both positions, OE trumps him big time...his claims of YE + God, just fall completely short. THAT, is a given.

However, what Fysh was commenting on, wasn't the actual data of the argument itself...but the method of argumentation. Hovind could be absolutely correct, or absolutely in error...him arguing non-X, IS valid argumentation. Ultimately, in this scenerio, his opposition will be the victor. NOT because of Hovind's argumentation, but because of the abundance of evidence against him. We aren't speaking of evidence here, we are speaking of his argumentation. These are 2 completely different things here.

Likewise, let's say that Hovind has it right, all of his evidence is correct and he debunks OE. But, he only attacks via non-X. Of course, since the evidence would lay with his position, YE + God would be the most valid position. Evidence determines this. However, his argumentation stayed the same, and whether or not the evidence is strong or lacking, does not play a role as to whether or not his logic was sound.

Something can be true, while being illogical, and logical while still being untrue. It is FORM that we are speaking of here.



Not all claims are created equal. You always always ALWAYS place the greatest weight on actual supporting evidence for the proposition rather than lack of evidence from the opposition. This is how the world works.
No one has claimed that the best, most reliable, or ONLY way to make a case is to argue for non-X. That has never once been said. It HAS been said though, by Fysh, that one cannot argue non-X. And that is abslutely FALSE. Any first year HS student taking a critical thinking course could tell you that.

An argument is stronger with affirmitive evidence. That is a given. That is not what is being discussed, that is not the issue. The issue is, that an argument CAN be won by attacking X (or going non-X).

Either X or Y.
Not X.
Therefore Y.

Can't make it any simpler than that. I highly recommend some reading material on the nature of logic.

Galendir
November 2nd, 2004, 06:44 PM
OK, If you prove X false, non-X must me true. Dysjuncitve syllogism, law of Non-contradiction and all that.
However, Fyshed's post can be understood in a different way, albeit poorly worded.

You can bash away at X all day if you want. Unless you have a substantial base of proof for an alternate truth, your argument has to prove non-X to be successful. Which Hovind does not.If what is really meant by this statement is 'Even if one can refute ALL the EVIDENCE that supports X, This in and of itself offers NO EVIDENCE to support non-X.' then the statement is TRUE. It may be the case that the evidence in support of non-X is equally refutable, in which case neither side has gained ANY ground. And this of course is really what Hovind is doing. He is NOT proving OE false, he is "bashing" the EVIDENCE that supports OE. Perhaps all the scientific methods and evidence used to support an OE model are flawed, and therefore INCONCLUSIVE (which is the MOST one can hope to prove from this approach.) This still leaves wide open the possibility that all the methods and evidence used to support a YE are even MORE flawed. Hovind must still produce SUPERIOR evidence to directly support that YE is true or he has FAILED to make a case.
To insist that Fyshed's statement MUST be understood in terms of a strict dysjunctive syllogism or that it is tantamount to a rejection of the law of noncontradiction is ungracious and unjustified.

Apokalupsis
November 2nd, 2004, 11:13 PM
You are talking about the quality of evidence. The quality of evidence is indeed very important. What is being discussed, is argumentation.

In my first response to Fysh, I said: If there it is the case of X or Y, and it is non-X, then it must be Y.

Also, one does not need to refute "ALL the EVIDENCE that supports X"...again, we are speaking of method of argumentation. It isn't that ALL evidence for Evolution must be shown to be false in order for the opposition (YE) to be proven true....it is the PRACTICE or APPLICATION of argumentation that is key here. That is, when an argument FOR evolution is debunked (when it contains disjuncts of course), that has become supportive for the oppositional claim.

Also, it has not been said that the ONLY necessary approach is to attack the opposition (and not provide affirmative support)...in fact, it was said some posts back, that the stronger of arguments is indeed, positive support for a claim. There are various qualities of both arguments and evidence. The statement is NOT that one only needs to argue non-X...but that one CAN argue non-X...which is contrary to what Fysh had stated which initiated my response.

It is a given, IMO, that if the ONLY argumentation that one could give, would be that of non-X, then one's position, while certainly supported, may still not be compelling enough to win an audience. But we aren't going that far...this was merely a statement concerning methods of attack.

Fyshhed
November 3rd, 2004, 05:20 AM
You are talking about the quality of evidence. The quality of evidence is indeed very important. What is being discussed, is argumentation.

In my first response to Fysh, I said: If there it is the case of X or Y, and it is non-X, then it must be Y.
Which is what Hovind argues. X vs. Y, with no grey area and no adjustability. Of course he thinks he's right.



Also, one does not need to refute "ALL the EVIDENCE that supports X"...again, we are speaking of method of argumentation. It isn't that ALL evidence for Evolution must be shown to be false in order for the opposition (YE) to be proven true....it is the PRACTICE or APPLICATION of argumentation that is key here. That is, when an argument FOR evolution is debunked (when it contains disjuncts of course), that has become supportive for the oppositional claim. This has at no point been achieved by Hovind or anyone else, though.


Also, it has not been said that the ONLY necessary approach is to attack the opposition (and not provide affirmative support)...in fact, it was said some posts back, that the stronger of arguments is indeed, positive support for a claim. There are various qualities of both arguments and evidence. The statement is NOT that one only needs to argue non-X...but that one CAN argue non-X...which is contrary to what Fysh had stated which initiated my response. In the instance with 2 possible conclusions, if one is proven wrong, then logically the other "should" be right, but realistically applied, if one equally viable solution is wrong, is the other one also immune from error?


It is a given, IMO, that if the ONLY argumentation that one could give, would be that of non-X, then one's position, while certainly supported, may still not be compelling enough to win an audience. But we aren't going that far...this was merely a statement concerning methods of attack.
Your whole premise contains the claim that out of 2 choices, if 1 is wrong, the other must be right. This is true always, given that premise.

However, if this is the case, then Hovind could be replaced with any character from any non-X position (other religions for example) and still "prove" he is right. Suddenly it comes down to the broadest concept if you want to keep it X and non-X, otherwise you don't have those 2 limited factors you want. On the broadest level in this topic, no ground can truly be gained because it's speculation vs. speculation.

Apokalupsis
November 3rd, 2004, 08:10 AM
Which is what Hovind argues. X vs. Y, with no grey area and no adjustability. Of course he thinks he's right.
It's not a matter of "grey area". If there are 2 options, 1 is false, then it follows that the other is correct.

It's like saying:

Either Apok owns ODN or Booger owns ODN.
Booger does not own ODN.
Therefore, Apok owns ODN.

It is a case when there are only 2 options (disjuncts). And that is the case w/ Hovind's argumentation. Either we have a young earth created by God, or we have an old earth (God could be or could not be involved...doesn't matter).


This has at no point been achieved by Hovind or anyone else, though.
I'm not judging his quality of evidence, I'm only concerned with his form, that is what you objected to previously.

I agree, that some of what Hovind says is bunk, I'm not sure about some of his other claims. Thus far, NOT A SINGLE person here has refuted anything Hovind has said in the other thread. The posting of links of other sites that claim they have refuted Hovind, is unnacceptable for argumentation. See our rules page.



In the instance with 2 possible conclusions, if one is proven wrong, then logically the other "should" be right, but realistically applied, if one equally viable solution is wrong, is the other one also immune from error?
No, in the instance w/ 2 only 2 conclusions, if one is wrong, the other HAS to be right. It is a logical IMPOSSIBILITY for there to be any other outcome.

In the case where there are 3 possibilities, but only 2 are given...we have an instance of false dilemma (a fallacy). But it would have to be shown first, that the 2 given possibilities were wrong, and there is a 3rd option. However, this cannot be the case for the scenerio w/ Hovind. It is a TRUISM, that if we have a YE, we thusly, cannot have an OE. There is no middle ground. If someone is dead, then they cannot be alive. They are either/or. You are still on the issue of invidual arguments and evidences presented. You have to step back and look at the big picture. This is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.



Your whole premise contains the claim that out of 2 choices, if 1 is wrong, the other must be right. This is true always, given that premise.
ABSOLUTELY.



However, if this is the case, then Hovind could be replaced with any character from any non-X position (other religions for example) and still "prove" he is right.
No, he can't. You are still aren't getting it. It isn't "If OE is wrong, then ANY possibile alternative that one claims is right. That is certainly NOT the case.

It is the case, that if the earth is old, then it cannot be young. It is the case that if the earth is young, then it cannot be old. That is what it boils down do. So if he PROVES that the earth is not old, then it is supportive of a young earth. Likewise, if his opponents prove that the earth is not young, then it has to be old.

Fyshhed
November 3rd, 2004, 02:35 PM
No, he can't. You are still aren't getting it. It isn't "If OE is wrong, then ANY possibile alternative that one claims is right. That is certainly NOT the case.
You misinterpreted. I'm saying it could be a Muslim saying Allah created the universe instead of Evolution. It could be an old-school Greek Mythology believer who thought it was Zeus and Poseidon and company who are responsible. The point is that ANYONE who is anti-evolution can present Hovind's particular argument. This creates a SPECIFIC Non-X argument, that if valid, suddenly becomes a "which non-X now?" issue?


It is the case, that if the earth is old, then it cannot be young. It is the case that if the earth is young, then it cannot be old. That is what it boils down do. So if he PROVES that the earth is not old, then it is supportive of a young earth. Likewise, if his opponents prove that the earth is not young, then it has to be old.I'm not disputing this. I'm saying that he can say the earth is young, or Osama bin Laden could say it, or someone like Ghandi etc. The Non-X argument in this case would fragment as soon as it was proven "right" in the instance evolution was SOMEHOW disproved.

Apokalupsis
November 3rd, 2004, 03:31 PM
You misinterpreted. I'm saying it could be a Muslim saying Allah created the universe instead of Evolution. It could be an old-school Greek Mythology believer who thought it was Zeus and Poseidon and company who are responsible.
I got ya now. And to this point, you are correct. But the error you have made, is assuming when one argues for YE (+God), that there is a SPECIFIC God being argued for...and that is not the case. The ONLY thing we can determine from the outcome of this argument, is either YE (with some sort of God or higher power), or OE. This argument does not address the NATURE of any God whatsoever. It makes NO claims to the matter. It is irrelevant. You don't need to know WHICH God from this argument...the only thing being debated at this point, is IF there is a God who created the world "as-is".


The point is that ANYONE who is anti-evolution can present Hovind's particular argument.
Yes.


This creates a SPECIFIC Non-X argument, that if valid, suddenly becomes a "which non-X now?" issue?
No, they are 2 entirely different arguments. 1 is what we have been discussing: YE vs OE. The 2nd, IF YE is true, would be "which God?" They are not related. Neither argument speaks of the other.



I'm not disputing this. I'm saying that he can say the earth is young, or Osama bin Laden could say it, or someone like Ghandi etc. The Non-X argument in this case would fragment as soon as it was proven "right" in the instance evolution was SOMEHOW disproved.
It doesn't fragment, it just doesn't tell us anything about the God that is involved, that's all. It would then at that point, become a different argument.

Galendir
November 3rd, 2004, 06:54 PM
You are talking about the quality of evidence. The quality of evidence is indeed very important. What is being discussed, is argumentation.My points were not about the quality of evidence per se, but were indeed directly addressing the nature of his argumentation. ALL the argumentation is over lines of evidence used to support a given proposition. It is wrong to construct the argument as somehow directly speaking to the truth of a given propostion in a way that completely bypasses or disregards a handling of the evidences used to support that proposition.


In my first response to Fysh, I said: If there it is the case of X or Y, and it is non-X, then it must be Y.That's fine, but the subject is not some abstract exercise in logical truths where one can render truth values to the propositions independent of considerations of empirical evidence and inferential lines of support. It is in fact these grounds of support that provide the context to which Fyshed directs his remark.


Also, one does not need to refute "ALL the EVIDENCE that supports X".This misses the point. I was not making the point that he NEEDS to refute ALL the evidence, I was presenting the most favorable case for his position. That is, even if he were so successful in his criticisms against the arguments used to support an OE model, so as to demonstrate that every one of them was flawed, even this fantastic degree of success would still not in any way demonstrate that the YE model is true. This point may be clearer if one notes that proving the arguments in support of X fallacious is not equivalent to proving the fact of X false.


..again, we are speaking of method of argumentation.And the method of argumentation of which we are speaking is that of "Bashing X" which in this context can only meaningfully refer to attacking the evidence, the methods, or the arguments used to support X. How is it even conceivable for Hovind to make a direct argument against X/OE that is not really a counter-argument against the arguments in support of X/OE?


It isn't that ALL evidence for Evolution must be shown to be false in order for the opposition (YE) to be proven true.Of course not. This isn't remotely my point.


...it is the PRACTICE or APPLICATION of argumentation that is key here. That is, when an argument FOR evolution is debunked (when it contains disjuncts of course), that has become supportive for the oppositional claim.But you are not correctly identifying the disjuncts or exactly what it is that is being "debunked". If an argument for OE or evolution is shown to be wrong or "debunked", one has merely shown that that particular ARGUMENT is wrong. It is not the same as showing that the case of OE or evolution being true is false, nor is it the case that any argument has been made to support that non-X/YE is true. You are inferring that the other half of the implied disjunction, or the "oppositional claim" is the case of YE being true or the case of YE being true is supported. This is erroneous. The disjunction you are really presenting here is Either the argument validly supports the case of OE being true OR the case of YE being true is supported. This is clearly a false disjunction. The only genuine disjunct in this case is the negative case, that is Either the argument validly supports the case of OE being true OR it is not the case that the argument validly supports the case of OE being true. Even if Hovind were to demonstrate conclusively that the latter were true for every known pro-evolution argument, it would still not lend any weight to the positive claim that YE is true or supported.


Also, it has not been said that the ONLY necessary approach is to attack the opposition (and not provide affirmative support)...Of course no one has said this, but the whole point of this debate concerns the nature of arguments against the opposition and whether or not they constitute support for one's own position; specifically, whether or not Kent Hovind's attacks against the arguments for evolution/OE (even if successful) offer any genuine support for YE.


in fact, it was said some posts back, that the stronger of arguments is indeed, positive support for a claim. There are various qualities of both arguments and evidence. The statement is NOT that one only needs to argue non-X...but that one CAN argue non-X...which is contrary to what Fysh had stated which initiated my response.And my point is that you are misrepresenting the real meaning behind Fyshed's statement, and misapplying the principle of the disjunctive syllogism to it.


It is a given, IMO, that if the ONLY argumentation that one could give, would be that of non-X, then one's position, while certainly supported, may still not be compelling enough to win an audience.A true disjunction should be obvious and apparent. If one were to credibly show that the earth is not old, it would be identical to showing that the earth is young. The only reason why an audience should not be compelled to accept such a conclusion is if the case for non-X really wasn't made, but rather merely that the case for X was shown to fail.


But we aren't going that far...this was merely a statement concerning methods of attack.With necessary implications as to what it is being attacked, which you have misidentified.

FruitandNut
November 4th, 2004, 12:49 PM
So? Show me how the UN-natural fits in.

GLP: I personally do not see anything as being un-natural - everything is either natural or supernatural. 'Supernatural' being a complimentary law or set of laws that we are not privvy to fully understanding in our everyday life and present existence.