Originally posted by Flipper
Heusdens did indeed send in a post, which I have. I am currently wrasslin' with the challenge of answering Bob's questions, attacking his argument *and* summing up the evidence (or lack of it) in 5,000 characters.
It's non-trivial.
Flipper:
You did not sent in a post for the Bob vs the World CHALLENGE, which had to be posted last monday? It's a pitty.
Am I the only one that went into a challenge with Mr. Bob Enyart on here? I could expect several people to be able to challenge the point of view of Bob Enyard, since many had done that in one or more posts.
Or are these people not sure of the vailidity of their own arguments?
I was not convinced to sent in a post, since the limitations of 5000 words, would realy not suffice to even explain in concept my point of view. So I had to leave out a whole bunch of topics, which were brought up here, and much of the arguments I had already used in the course of this discussion.
But I had expected that several other posts would have been sent in.
My argument can stand on itself, I think. Although it can not be expected that one post of 5000 words is enough to rebute the numerous arguments made by Bob in 9 posts. Since I had to focus on my own line of argument, I did not even attempt to discuss all his numerous pesudo-arguments. It is not very fruitfull to argue against such pseudo-scientific claims, since they do not reveal real problems of scientific knowledge, and can not be used to discredit all of scientific knowledge in total. These arguments therefore do not make his 'hypothesis' any more creditable.
It only adds to the confusion a lot of people already have when it comes down to hard science, and will contribute to further misunderstanding of scientific issues.
My argumentation therefore follows a totally different line of reasoning. I won't reveal the contents of the post, before it has been actually put on here as a contribution to the discussion.
I would want to take a real challenge, that is in the form of a fair discussion between me - reasoning from a materialist point of view - and a theist,when both are offered the same amount of time and length, and some discussion techniques are agreed upon, to bring the discussion within some fair limits.
