Watch for Updates
Originally Published March 18, 2022
by Robert Baty
Link to Creationism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise:
http://kehvrlb.com/creation-critical-thinking-exercise-101
Link to Eric Hovind/Jason Lisle Logic Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KODKErso78
On March 16, 2021, Eric Hovind and Jason Lisle broadcast a video via Eric Hovind’s Creation Today Ministry. They presented as two skilled in logic/critical thinking. So, I thought to challenge them with my Creationism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise. The following are screenshots reflecting how that discussion has gone.
Update March 23, 2022
People don’t want to play by your rules.
You are asking them to “affirm” or “deny”, but this is like asking a child on a test to answer “true” or “false”. It’s like asking “choose A, B, C, or D”.
You have no power to force people to select your provided answers.
A judge in court can ask a person if he or she pleads “guilty” or “not guilty”. If the defendant avoids the question, then I can understand if the judge gets frustrated because it would be contempt of court.
You don’t have this luxury in a public forum.
@guest45
.
Cute.
Some spook comes out of cyberspace to run interference for and provide
cover for Eric Hovind and Jason Lisle.
.
Cute.
.
It is certainly appropriate to “ask” the professing experts to either
“affirm” or “deny” issues that might be in dispute; or a child to
answer “yes” or “no” or “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” on questions where those
are the stipulated options.
.
There position, as yours, says a lot about their problems with the
basics and the prospects of getting them to deal openly and honestly
with weightier matters that might otherwise have been taken up in
due time.
In this case, they don’t want to play by the rules because they just
can’t bring themselves to admit they agree with me on otherwise
uncontroversial rules of logic which they claim to be experts in.
.
They can’t handle the truth in this case, and their antics are
quite consistent with that conclusion which I have drawn from
the evidence of their antics.
.
Robert wrote, “In this case, they don’t want to play by the rules because they just can’t bring themselves to admit they agree with me on otherwise uncontroversial rules of logic which they claim to be experts in.”
This is an assumption. Maybe they “agree” with you on the basics, but they won’t submit the answer within your framework.
They are willing to have a debate with you outside of your own pre-defined rules.
“Robert Baty is not a judge with legal powers.”
Do you, Robert Baty, “affirm” or “deny” this statement?
@guest45
.
Well, if they don’t like to oblige pre-defined rules,
have them get in touch with me and we’ll see if we
can work out the logistics and produce a debate on
some topic of mutual interest, defining the rules as
we might go.
.
“A person has no contractual obligation to reply with an ‘affirm’ or ‘deny’ answer to Robert Baty.”
Do you, Robert Baty, affirm or deny?
@guest45
.
You wrote, in part:
.
“They (Hovind & Lyle) are willing to have a debate with you.”
.
I responded, in part, with:
.
“Have them get in touch with me.”
.
I’m waiting.
.
@guest45
.
“Robert Baty is not a judge with legal powers.”
– Eric Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Jason Lyle: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Robert Baty: (To Affirm or Deny)
.
“A person has no contractual obligation to reply with
an ‘affirm’ or ‘deny’ answer to Robert Baty.”
– Eric Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Jason Lyle: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Robert Baty: (To Affirm or Deny)
.
Some may have noticed that in presenting my propositions to Eric and Jason I first “affirmed” or “denied” them.
.
Alas, @guest45 has neither led the way and provided his position on his propositions nor has Eric or Jason made their appearance and offered their position.
.
I’ll wait for Eric and Jason to do as much as I have done and first provide their positions before I respond with mine. Otherwise, I don’t care what position @guest45 takes on them.
.
I’m waiting.
.