DasAmericanAtheist-Destroyed in two parts (part one).wmv

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• DasAmericanAtheist
• Destroyed
• in
• two
• parts
• part
• one

[fdasherv]

Among all the flaws in this argument, one is glaring. The universe did not begin to exist, it expanded into it's present state from a previous state.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 This is clearly a case of you having done nothing but watch his debates on youtube. You have never so much as cracked open a peer-reviewed philosophical Journal. You have never read his published work. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims about his debates. He misrepresents no one and in his published work that fact is born out. Read.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 NO, it is not his SOURCES which are published (though they are) it is that HIS WORK is published. His ORIGINAL WORK (even if he is resurrecting an old argument) is published in peer-reviewed journals. Which defeats your claim

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly Yes, he is. I've followed his debate and he is intellectually dishonest. He would take a source, misrepresented. He would make claims about science that no scientist ever make. What pisses me off the most is whenever he would mix up evolution to abiogenesis. Even in his so called Kalam Cosmological argument, he makes stuff up about cosmology and that cosmologists have yet to discovered.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly I don't care about his curriculum vitae. Sure most of his sources are published.That wasn't the point. I'm saying he misrepresented them, making claims that cosmologists and biologists don't make. He has his way with math too. He'll say something like, "the likelihood of life starting by chance is 10^40" First, he can't know that, second, no science even claim that evolution or abiogenessis happened because of pure luck.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 No intellectual dishonesty is you not knowing the craig has published in more peer-reviewed journals then almost anyone else in philosophy in the past 20 years. TIme to stop talking and time to start reading.

[timetothinkclearly]

@petion2010 Everything you have seen WLC talk about in debates has been published in either a) peer reviewed journals or B) in peer reviewed books from academic publishing presses. Not that he doesn't publish elsewhere after the fact, but arguments have been defended in countless peer-reviewed journals. Your simply ignorant if you don't know this. Google Ciriculum Vitae. Second, he has answered all your quesitons in peer-reviewed journals. Its time to be quiet and time to start reading.

[petion2010]

Why not submit their research and papers in scientific journal for peer review? Why not investigate and present evidence for their claim? No, they don't because their position require faith. If they want to believe in whatever they want, I'm fine by that. But I object when they wanna use science to prove their beliefs, yet reject the scientific method, making false claims about scientific theory, and distort science theory to fit into their belief. That's intellectual dishonesty.

[petion2010]

@timetothinkclearly And I stand by my words. WLC, PPSimmons, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, and banana boy Ray Comfort are intellectually dishonest. They make claims about biology and cosmology that simply aren't true, they, specially WLC, come up with statistical impossibility using big numbers that make no sense, and they distort scientific researches and theories. There's a reason they pick their audiences so carefully, people who are scientifically illiterate and have the same belief as them.