Kent Hovind

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.

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.

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?

Pls tell us why nature is more scientific than a creator? Note that physical proof and the observance of an already working system cannot be put forth as a valid reasoning. IOW, you cannot say the sun gives energy and sustains life as the causative factor supporting nature: these are mere observances, not evidences, which can more easily be allocated to a creator.Reductionist analogy: you cannot point to a steering wheel of a car swaying left and point this as the cause; ths is all that nature worshippers do.

quote:

---

I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.

​

There is evidence of natural causes.

---

No sir. That is not evidence of MR/MRS/MS NATURE. Instead it says there is a complex program directive which causes a rain cycle. I even gave a reductionist real life analogy:If your car steering turns left, does it mean NATURE did it? That is exactly what you are saying by manipulating a most bogus premise the rain was caused by NATURE. Its a slight of hand casino logic. You gave no reason why you even mention a ficticious premise called nature - did you ever see nature directing the rain and causing a puddle in your backyard - can we see a snap shot? You said you had 'evidence' - I say you have just a word coined recetly?

quote:

---

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

---

I did present logical reasons which are based on scientific premises: mountains do not cause cars - car makers cause cars with intelligent input, and observable blue prints and processes. Similarly, the complex and majestic engineerings we see all around us was not caused by nature - it must require an intelligence at least greater than the complex and majestic engineerings - logical, no? The latter is a fully vindicated phenomena [the car example VS naturedidit]. It is you exclusively who has no evidence behind your claims other than a 'word'.

quote:

---

Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.

---

Where's the snapshot? Is there nothing other than a car steering driving itself - a result of nature? No car maker? And it took billions of years to happen too! You are confusing an effect as the cause!

quote:

---

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.

---

I aready prempted this reasoning: the proof factor is mutually neutralized. You are fantasizing you have evidence! You have just a word and nothing more.

quote:

---

Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods does not make them true.

​

It really is that simple.

---

Did nature instruct light to happen? And if light is the first product - did nature do this retrospectively? Did nature cause a host of actions in a row, like the separation of land and water on earth, which is critically conducive to forthcoming life - this shows remarkable intelligence very similar to a superior mind with knowledge from a time which even predated the universe. Forgive me - it appears to me this is caused by a transcendent mind as a far more scientific conclusion. Frgive me - I see the science of Genesis better than Jitterbugging quarks did it.

quote:

---

I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.

---

My car is turning left, the cause is the steering wheel does it.

quote:

---

I said Natural cause.

​

I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.

​

There is evidence of natural causes.

---

Rain is caused by a directive program - else it is not a scientific reasoning. One can emulate this in a lab, after making sure there is no nature in the room: heat the water in a controlled atmosphere, it will become mist and fall as rain; the traits in water properties constitute a directive program. Of note, one must also clarify what caused only one planet to display this directive; maybe it relates to critical separations of matter, embedded with a program that directs it to do so - because they align critically with forthcoming life? Why not, and is it not a more scientific reasoning than naturedidit? Why do you allocate rain to nature - does it know that life is forthcoming and made a great fluke guess?I don't accept NATURAL SELECTION but I do accept DIRECTIVE SELECTEE. The latter appears more scientifically plausable. I don't accept NATURE formed the eye and dna - NS is based on random via a manipulation of word play. To me, science is based on an intelligence impacting of complex products and actions - else it is not science. If nature produced dna, it can surely produce TV sets and cars.