Kent Hovind

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

There is evidence of natural causes.

---

Negative. You are confusing actions and occurences as a result of fictional, never witnessed phenomena. Pls tell us where your deity NATURE resides, what colors does he/she come in and who is the last person it spoke with?

quote:

---

Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.

---

There is heaps of evidences in wholly scientific reasoning and premises, and expressed by the world's greatest minds. There is nothingness in your claims.

We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

quote:

---

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 zero/zilch evidence of nature and/or natural causes. Nature is just a metaphor of the inexplicable, but it has become the leading deity of atheism.Repro, for example, has no alignment with the nature deity; it is exclusively based on a program embedded in the seed transmitted by the host parents - exactly as stated in Genesis. Proof: let Mr/Mrs. Nature perform that feat w/o the seed factor - the only way atheism can sustain their claims.Edited by IamJoseph, : 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.Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods does not make them true.It really is that simple.

In an effort to wrangle this topic back towards the OP, I will use IamJoseph as a prime example of how looney creationists are. Namely, this comment here: You heard it folks. Unless he is championing some form of solopsism, nature doesn't exist! There isn't anything natural. Everything we see is god's hand meddling in everything.There is no feasible way to debate individuals who take this path.

I request you to start a topic on your beef with nature and your take on it. You seem to have a rather unique as to what you think nature and natural is......Honestly though, you wreak of poe and a troll.

quote:

---

Since there is evidence that there are natural causes....

---

Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence. Here's my say:THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURE - ACTUALLY. IT IS THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC PREMISE EVER DEVISED - IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

Hello IamJoseph,I think this may be a language issue. Thinking about the definition that I use for nature and I would suggest it is the same definition most people use, if you are using the same definition you could not possibly be making your statements and claim to be rational.Can you tell us what you think nature mean please?It is very possible that you are using the word in a totally different way that everyone else here is using it.I dont know anyone who would be able to consider that nature is a deity or that there is no evidence of nature. Also, from the standard definition of nature as I understand it, being an athiest has no effect on it. It does not matter what faith you are, nature does not change.So if you could define the word nature as you understand it, it may help us clear up this issue.

quote:

---

Can you tell us what you think nature mean please?

---

Its described in vague, abstract terms, including state of being, mother nature, natural process, etc. But in the end it means nothingness. I don't think its a language barrier, as it is awkward to mention anything resembling the numerous competing and contradicting theologies, so it is more a generic, non-denominational method for the allocation of observations and what they may be caused by, without resorting to a creator. It is not a bad premise, as science and theology should never mix - but nature is nothing more than a metaphor or an imaginary bridge to leap over the godidit premise with a naturedidit.The mere observation of an action or process cannot in any wise be deemed its causative factor or as evidence for it, and we have nothing else here other than the coinage of a word. Ecosystem falls under the same basis, namely this is a comprehensive construct of interlocking and inter-depending processes, and generically termed as ecosystem. There is no science behind nature, natural causes or ecosystem; there is only observation of a working process, also seen within the human body.We do not call a car's working observances as a natural cause; so why should rainfall or sunlight be given this allocation: both display complexity. It begs the question if we cannot physically prove the universe maker in a lab vase, does the logical premise of it also become discardable? I say the sound premise must apply and transcend what we cannot capture, especially so when we cannot physically capture Mr/Mrs. Nature!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

---

I am not at all into any theology; I mention sections of Genesis only in an emperical mode. But I did more than just saying it - that is your position which I merely tried to point out. The scientific cause & effect premise is with Creationism; what have you got - name a scientific premise, as cause and effect cannot be allocated to a self propagating stream of nothingness as its alternative.Proof and dis-proof cannt apply to any of those two premises and is thus neutralized. We are left with only one alternative from a science POV: a complexity is the result of a source of wisdom, intentional and purposeful - else it is not borne of wisdom or intelligence; this is the reason I find Genesis more plausable; namely the cause and effect for a complexity is more aligned with a source of transcendent wisdom, than random selection. One of those premises is not scientific, yet widely accepted as such. Someone is telling fibs here, and passing it off as science! But scence itself is a post-universe phenomenon which never existed at one time: how could it when there was nothing around to apply science to?