Kent Hovind

try and think deeper C. Creationism and science are terms. The reality of the situation is that all things are testable logical propositions agaisnt a demonstratable realitySomething is logically demonstratable regardless of terms and concepts. If I called creationism a football and evolution a usda grade A bag of dufuss, (say like dwise), it would not change the reality of its logical possibilitesIts either logically demonstratable or it is not, no matter what term you put on itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Read my post again the argument is there. Look alittle deeper and if you still cant see it Illl present it again. Its sad that I should have to do that with such a self-proclaimed educated person as yourselfdawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Then show why in argument form, not in one of your mind numbing speeches Please by all means, do one of two things, either show what i have ran form or make attempt at a single argument in my post in this or anyother thread.Id like to research you NOT doing that, but ofcourse I cant find something that is not thereDo you even understand that creationism is a term, not a reality. The reality of creationism is its logical tenets as an argument. its not to be connected with religion or evolution.Its testable in logical form or it is not.Foe heavens sake please do the research of which boastDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Please dear God in heaven, give this man the ability, time and skills to accomplish such a taskDawn Bertot

Please by all means do this very thing. Please however, remember the principle of brevity. No lecturesYou havent even paid attention to the fact I have not said evo is not true, its doubtful if youll be able to represent me accurately anywhere else.Lets see, this will be funGeeeeez I didnt know you were going to kill me, my days are numberedYour a funny guy dwise, an amature debater, but a funny guyDawn Bertot

Do you have brain damage or something? Again, making assertions is not the same as referencing an argument in a post, then attempting to refute itPlease quit throwing out insults and assertions, present the argument where I have fled or I am a liarIf this was myself or some other believer here, doing what you are doing we would have already been suspended very quicklyPlease present the arguments from my post pleaseIf you cant do this, then simply admit itDawn Bertot

Of course not. Dr Thomas B Waren was (he has now paased) a bible scholar, trained philosopher, held nearly every philosophical degree, member of every philosophical association. But most notibly he was a highly recognized logician and experienced apologistSome of his memorable debates were with those with Dr Flew, Dr Wallace Matson at berkley and Dr Joe E. Barnhart, which followed and taught the principles of Jeremy Benthem/ Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics)In the Churhes of Christ he was the leading Apologist in his day, excluding his mentor, Guy N Woods, which I believe was the single greatest debator, past or present.Debates with Dr Warren became very one sided very quickly. he was a masterful apologist, but he was most noted for his Biblical schlorship.Some of His books includeLogic and the BibleHave atheist proved thier is no God.And several several othersDawn Bertot

Tell me truthfully Dwise, you were drunk last night after a certain point in your posting , werent you?And yes, I realize it will take some time for the post of yours, that will bring my downfall. I patiently and eagerly awaitDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Very impressive, I dont know what it has to do with the topic but very impressive, Im sure your mom is very proud. BTW, I thought I already was debating you. When i use the word logic I am only referencing it in its more general use of the word as sound reasoning
Logic is a term, its abstract concepts and usage as per your example above, are abstractions as well.Reality, not terms and abstract usages, set the tone for what is and is not rational, concerning the existence of physical realitesThe classic example is the only two explanations that reality will allow, for the existence of things in reality. reality and physical properties give me both the boundries and limations of my conclusions concerning these matters. regardless of my usage of reasoning principles, these two physical realites will persist.IOWs, reality explains what is rational, what is logical, what is reasonable, not philosophical termsor symbolic logic.This is why in my explanation of creationism I attempt to demonstrate that logic of reality, physical properties willl decide what will be my rational approach.IOWs, creationism, ID and an explanation of Soley Natural Causes, can only be reduced to rational propositions, with the limited alternatives that reality will allow. they have nothing to do with religion or opinions, but will be strickly based on realites alternatives and limitations, concerning physical propertiesSo yes, I do understand what is involved in a logical approach, you have simply isolated one aspect of rational thought, that is described as 'Logic' The same things can be accomplised in a public week long debatebertot writesDro writesIt does not surprise me in the least you do not understand my meaning. It only bothers me that you did not attempt a rebuttalDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I have to go out for a few hours. I will make one more attempt to answer this question, as I have already answered several times.I will make one more attempt to have you actually break down my post and its content, without handwaving it and saying bullshit or to funny. If you do not, i will understand there will no more need to respond or pay attention to anything you have posted to myselfAgreed.Dawn bertotEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (was no closing /qs), add a blank line in quote box.

Correct there is evidence of natural causes, but not SOLEY natural causes, to which you need to demonstrate that it is product of itself.There is also evidence of design but not proof of design, which should make it clear to any tyro in logic that neither position can be demonstrated absolutelyWhich should make it clear that if the occurance of natural causes is a reason to belief in soley natural causes, then logically, existence itself, its finite nature and very clear design to a purpose, should prove a designer in the same way. That is if we follow your line of reasoningAs I indicated in my last post and to which you gave no reply, you would need to know the whole process start to finish to know it is a product of soley of itselfFurther, there is nothing in the natural world or in the natural process that would indicate it has properties of eternality, given the simple principle of entropy, infinite progression and so forth Design is a principle equal to that of natural causes, because we can observe it in actionSecondly, youve failed to distinquish between soley natural causes and natural causesUntil you can demonstrate the process in its entirity, which we know you cant, then design is on equal footing with the simple principle and observation of natural causes Only someone that doesnt even understand simple points of reasoning would make such a silly commentSince you claim I have no evidence for a creator and it is likely you will disagree about design, yet you wont be able to demonsrte it in argument form, then your implication is that natural causes is sufficient to establish the principle of soley natural processes.That being the case I will expect you to provide the processes in its entirity, start to finish, eternality or whatever . If its that simple your task should be simpleOfcourse when you cant and wont do this it will become painfully obvious that our "evidence" is of the same natrue. Its reduced to a logical proposition pitted against realities limitations So without simply repeating how simple it is, show me the processDawn Bertot

Well thats the second insinuation that I was liar. I believe you called him an idiot initially, correct?if you read the bio then you know that some, but not all of his debates involve ID and evolution. Dr Warren (one of my instructors) point is the same as the one I am making presentlyCreationism is FIRST a philosophical or logical proposition, with nothing to do with religion or stories. It is a rational explanation referenced by natual realites, with no absolute proof as proof goes. this is true for both sidessecondly, there exists no sharp contrast between creation and evo, because they are seprate issues Yeah Ive heard this song several times now and I am still waiting for you to present a single item out of my post that indicates I am a liar or I have misrpresented somethingIll accept your apology if it was the booze influencing your anger. those are serious charges and I dont thinkl you realize the nature of false accusations.Dawn Bertot

Amazing, how is it you get away with no actual debating, no attempts at rebuttal and you are not required to address any issues involved in anyones posts, responses, questions or challengesYou have no intention of debating. Maybe someone else in the form of a debator will pick up where you failed to start.dawn bertot