Kent Hovind

That's an interesting and rather all-encompassing question to ask, but Jar never claimed to have evidence of natural causes from start to finish. In fact, no one here has claimed this or would claim this, and no one I know of in science has ever claimed this.What Jar did say and what we are all saying is that when we make a claim it is because we have evidence for that claim, and that to this point in time all evidence we have is due to natural causes. You name a claim that we have actually made, rather than one you have made up, and we will provide the evidence behind that claim.But you continue to make significant contributions to this thread by providing examples of creationist debate techniques, in this case of putting words in other people's mouths, and of asking unanswerable questions as if the inability to answer unanswerable questions proved anything.So, getting back to your unsupported claims, Jar asked this in Message 268: You said that you'd already answered this question in Message 273: Where did you provide what was requested? Unless you tell us where your "Yes I did" is just another example of the creationist tactic of claiming to have answered questions they never answered.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hello Dawn, I think you missed my point. My point was that a lot of the people debating on this forum will see the creationist argument as starting with an unwarranted premise.Your definition of unwarranted is not quite correct. An unwarranted assumption when is an assumption that is based on insufficient evidence. This is very different from having no valid reason to believe in something. This forum often has many debates discussing this very issue. If there was sufficient evidence to warrant the assumption that God exists or the Theory of Evolution was false, then none of us would be here.Theism is the belief in a god or gods.That is an unwarranted assumption when putting forward a premise. If there was sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods, most of the science community would be believers. It is these people who, for the most part, associate their beliefs with evidence. We need a fair bit of verifiable supporting evidence before they choose a position. If the evidence was there, we would make the decision on whether to believe based upon that evidence. That's how scientists come to support any new theory. They ask for the evidence, evaluate, then decide to support it or not.I am not saying that theism is not valid. I am saying that it does not have sufficient evidence to become a warranted assumption. I am not sure if you are attempting to make a serious point here or if you are making a Star Wars joke.I will treat it as if you are making a serious statement.Who is the someone?When is a long time ago?Which far away galaxy are you talking about?What did this person observe, how did they record it and how did you get your hands on these records?What was the available evidence in this far away galaxy that is relavent to the discussion on theism on Earth?This statement is a perfect example of the unwarranted assumption that I am talking about. You are trying to make a point about something but all of the reasons you are using are not supported by any evidence.Your premise - Someone formed a valid, warranted premise from observations relating to the validity of theism.Your support - someone (who?), observed (how?) some available evidence (what evidence?) in a far away galaxy (where?) a long time ago (when?).Do you see why your argument does not really need to even be debated because the premise requires an unwarranted assumption? I stand by my statement for the reasons supplied. The evidence is not the same for both positions. I will assume we are both talking about the evidence for the existence of a supernatural being here. The evidence for a god or gods is not even close to the evidence that there is no god or gods. There is no observable, testable evidence to support the existence of a god.Position one - There is a godPosition two - There is no god or there is no evidence to support the existence of god.Lack of evidence for position one supports position two.Lack of evidence for position two does not support position one.I believe that Jar has hammered this point home. I will leave that discussion between you two.I am not saying that people should not believe in their own versions of god. I am saying that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a belief in God. From what I know of most religious people, this is not a criteria that is necessary anyway.My point is that many debaters on this site will see an argument that starts with a god figure as invalid because it starts with an unwarranted assumption. Considering that this is a one word reply that did not cover any of my supporting arguments and does not come with any explanation or supporting arguments of its own, I am going to ignore it as if it was not even said. My statement stands. Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you...You believe that in order to discuss the origin of existence, you need to discuss everything from that origin all the way to the present moment.
Is that right?If it is, I will be calling bullshit. There is no requirement to discuss current existence when talking about the origin of existence. From current theories (Stephen Hawking and a few other guys) there was no beginning in the sense you suggest. To discuss a beginning in this sense, there would still be a point before the beginning. And this is like discussing a point south of the south pole. Maybe you need to define existence.Take the Theory of Evolution for example. It is not necessary to prove abiogenesis, or even discuss it to support the theory. Proving abiogenesis does not directly support or prove evolution. It is not necessary to discuss the things that occurred after the origin of the universe when discussing theories of the origins of the universe. Unless they are actually part of the actual process being discussed. You will have to clarify what you mean by natural causes. Are you using the term natural causes as a catch all term to mean everything that has ever occurred? What event or process are you talking about when you say natural causes. There is no event or single process that I am aware of called natural causes for me to demonstrate from start to finish. The terms natural causes is not an event that has a start or a finish. I can demonstrate a process that requires only natural causes from start to finish. A drop of water falls from a leaf down to the ground. This can be explained mostly with physics as to how it occurred. No unnatural causes required.Creationism is a more valid position than what? Are you using the terms 'natural causes' as the opposing position to creation? If you are, this may be where people are having a problem with your arguments. As natural causes is a description of how an event takes place, rather than an event or theory regarding an event, it does not make sense to use it as the opposing terms to Creation. What are you comparing creationism to exactly? I have explained how an unwarranted assumption works. As soon as god enters the premise, it is an unwarranted assumption.I agree that evidence does not need my approval. Evidence needs no one's approval. It is evidence. I don't really know what this is referring to.

Dawn appears to think that: (Message 267) is "providing evidence".

Yes, I guess you're right, he probably does believe what he said was providing evidence. I've identified four creationist debate techniques that Dawn has used so far in this thread, probably worth while collecting them into a single post:Creationist Debate Techniques:

1. Claiming they've already proved something they haven't proved.
   ​
2. Misunderstanding how evidence works.
   ​
3. Putting words in people's mouths.
   ​
4. Asking unanswerable questions.
   ​
5. Asserting that something is so is sufficient, no evidence required.

In this case Dawn is providing another example of misunderstanding how evidence works.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Added item 5.

I think that there are actually two errors in there, first belief that a SOURCE is more important than CONTENT and that assertion carries weight.

You need to visit the Exodus debates for arguments pro and con regarding the land bridge. It is debatable. There are valid arguments explaining the reason for it's present depth. Nobody can deny the eroding energy of large bodies of swift moving sea water.
It has been explained that it relates to the flood evidence which creationists apply in the flood debates.Nothing has been empirically falsified or proven by either PoV.

Such events leave evidence Buz, and yes, that the Exodus is just myth has really pretty much been proven.And NO evidence has ever been presented that there ever was a land bridge.

It may
be, but it has nothing to do with the observabvle evidence of design and a designer. As i stated before evidence in God or gods, is not the same as the observable evidence of a designer. if you believe that the belief in God is not warrented, that would fall into a different category The evidence for a designer is more than warrented, due to the nature of existence itself and the fact that anything exists even in another discussion your statement is unwarrented and invalid no we are not talking about the evidence for God, we are discussing whether the evidence for creation is as valid as that of soley natural causes Absolutely Please explain it sounds like you need to define existence. Explain in simple terms what you have alledged above, or what it is that they have discovered about existence that will change or substantiate one of the only two logical possibilitesIll of course need something more than theories, that is because you seem so confident thier ablities to explain the unexplainable This is how Jar is using ther term, or atleast this is what is meant by his direct implication There is the existence of things and the nature of things, for you to make a determination. youve defind the Big bang as some sort of start, lets work from there. Natural causes is more than a description, when used in an argument. What is meant is that the natural world is a result of soley other natural causes. i find it hard to believe you do not understand that point butterfly, there are only two logical possibilites as to the how of existence. Natural causes is a phrase used to describe the eternality of matter or whatever you want to call it. Creationism is the term used to describe a designer for a process that clearly has the attributes of contingencyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not a problem. Anyone can study the actual break down of any property, even to the molecular structure. what is preventing me like yourself in studying any property to see, order, law and purpose?The observations are those of any molecular structure that are in operation to bring a thing to a useful and functioning purpose.What argument will you use to demonstrate that such order does not exist and that I cannot see and understand that order and purpose. Please demonstrate that it is not order and law in operation, regardless of its source Observation, evaluation and experimentation are essentially the same thing. They are words that describe investigation.As I previously stated any investigation or evaluation, simply involves the breakdown of any property whether it is the eye or a single cell organism. All of which operate in an orderly fashion to bring about purposes that are functional.Since said order is clearly obvious, and any investigation simple or great would reveal said order, it would be your obligation to demonstrate that said order, is not and does not exist Test any property you wish. The eye, a leaf, a molecule, the results will be the same. Now if you believe it adapted to said environment, ie evolution, then you would need to demonstrate that it was not designed to or created to act as such.because it appears it was. If you believe it was a result of itself, you would need to demonstrate that as wellThe hypo being tested was, how is this thing put together, how does it work, what is its purpose, what is its function, is it doing it n such a way that provides a useful function, etc. The answer of ocurse, is yes in all areas.since I have no explanation from YOURSELF, of where the materials that produced the Big Bang (explanation, this week, steady state last week, no telling what it will be next week), came from, its clear evidence of design and a designerthat is until you wiz kids can provide me with a better explanation. I believe Mr Hawkings big explanation in the last special he had (the story of everythingwas that the big bang came from simply nothing. Well there you go, how stupid is that?If he was not there to witness that event or does not know where it came from, only a very unwise person would proclaim it came from nothing. I can provide the quote if you need itDawn Bertot

Of course jar is making this claim. Im sure you are aware of direct and indirect implication. his implication is that things are a result of naural causes soley.For him to have any evidence of the CAUSES of things, he would have to know the start and finish of things, otherwise he could not and should not make any claim to eividence of that natureThe only claim of evidence that any person could make is that things exist, there is no EVIDENCE, in the way you are using evidence of how. I just did unless you are not aware of direct and indirect implication. Actually jars is doing more than implication, he is saying there is evidence of its cause, which is of course nonsense. there is only evidence of existence, not its causes Jars words and implications are his own. Its not my fault if he does not know how to debate. he is claiming to KNOW something he does not.Simply because somethings are a result of a natural causes is no indication that all things are naturally produced. It must be scientifically proved from start to finish correct?Natural cuases is a categorical statement and implication, no?Therein lies your claim, if you wish to claim natural causes, correct?Percy, unanswerable questions is the topic of discussion and the foundation of this website, I assumeBut that is my point isnt it. In the absense of that which knowable, we must rely on that which is logically demonstratableUntil someone can show how, order, law, purpose and design are less than "it came from nothing" and show why the latter is better evidence than the former, of that I have suggested it is more than enough to stand as evidence I had already answered it and now elaborated on it further here.Evidence in this category is limited to what can be demonstrated logically. Since there is no direct evidence that things are a result of soley natural causes, that is an assumption and no direct evidence of a creator, we didnt see him doing it, but there is evidence of things BEING HERE, which they obviously are, with order , law and purpose, then logically the evidence in both areas must be considered as evidenceAs evidence, its as warrented as any conclusion that one makes, believing things are a result of soley natural causes. Unless you and jar are ready to give up the position that you are making no such claimWhen we couple this with the fact that nothing in the natural world exhibits characteristics of that which is eternal, everything is dependant for its existence on something else and eventually losses energy. the evidence of an eternal existant being is even more reasonableDawn Bertot

There is evidence of natural causes.Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.It really is that simple.

Is it a debating technique of atheist to lie about peoples positions. Where have I said I have proved anything about existence? It works the same where the evidence allows only certain possibilites and limits the evidence to only reasonable conclusions. given the fact that the soley natural causes theory is reduced in character by the nature eixstence itself, the design theory appears even more reasonable Direct and indirect implication has solved this accusation that is leveled against myself If it is required of me to provide proof of a creator, why would he not need to demonstrate that his solution (natural causes), is the proof we need? it depends on whether you are discussing origins or something more identifiable like natural properties. In the absence of that which is provable, the best evidence rule will always applysince creationism or its ideologies are logically sound by reasoning principles, it follows that it serves as the best evidence available.certainly as sound as any those that could be offered by Mr hawking's theories and yet we grab them as evidence of the how and why of thingsDawn BertotAsking unanswerable questions.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

There is evidence of natural causes.Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.It really is that simple.

Dawn Bertot writes: Is your implication, that you are now prepared to demonstrate why the things I have listed do not actually exist and why they do not constitute evidence of that which i have indicated.Certainly you can do better than the others without just proclaiming, asserting and suggesting they are not evidenceset out why they are not evidencedawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Did you forget the assertion you made to DrJones?

quote:

---

Someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away observed the available evidence, law order an purpose, design etc and used this available evidence to form a valid, warrented premise.

---

When asked what evidence you had for making this statement you replied:

quote:

---

Observation, evaluation, experimentation and even accidental discoveries ...

---

I asked for you to break this down into finer details in support of your statement that someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away observed the available evidence, law order an purpose, design etc and used this available evidence to form a valid, warrented premise.I did not ask for generalizations of philosophy unattached from this specific statement.What observations did you make that led you to state that there was a "someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away?"What experiments or accidental discoveries are you referring to that led you to state that they "observed the available evidence, law order an purpose, design ..." and what observation, evaluation, experimentation and even accidental discoveries caused you to conclude that they "used this available evidence to form a valid, warrented premise." As this thread shows I did not make any such statement. You did. And I have no obligation to provide evidence for something you said, not me.Again, Dawn, referring to your ststement that "someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away observed the available evidence, law order an purpose, design etc and used this available evidence to form a valid, warrented premise," and your your response to DrJones that the evidence you used to arrive at this statement was borne of "Observation, evaluation, experimentation and even accidental discoveries" I am asking for specifics from you on exactly what observations, evaluation, experimentation and even accidental discoveries you used to arrive at your assertion that someone along time ago in a galaxay far far away observed the available evidence, law order an purpose, design etc and used this available evidence to form a valid, warrented premise.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.