Kent Hovind

You simply continue to post utterly false statements like "I will make one more attempt to answer this question, as I have already answered several times."You have NEVER presented evidence of some creator or the method that critter uses to influence evolution.Sorry Charley but continuing to post falsehoods will never make them true.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:

---

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

---

While this requirement is neutralized by no proof or disproof either way by both premises, there is indisputably more scientific vindication of a Creator than not so. The denial of this is hardly an intelligent or scientific disposition. Creationism, whether provable or not, remains the greatest mental thought ever concieved or proposed by the human mind's pondering, followed in turn by Monotheism. The Hebrew bible changed the universe for humanity, then and now; this should be the preamble in any rational thinking.

Close to 2k posts here and you've provided how much of this supposed evidence? (hint: the number is round in shape and null in value) Remember: bible quotes do NOT cut it. You should start a thread of your own that lists all of this un-disputable scientific evidence for some creator.I won't hold my breath....

I'm sorry but your continuing to post falsehoods does not constitute evidence of anything but your dishonesty.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.

1. Cause and effect.2. Complexity and random are mutually exclusive.3. In a finite realm, the alternative causative factors do not apply: they never existed at one time.4. There has never been an alternative answer to Creationism from any scientific sector.The scientific evidence [as opposed hard proof] for a Creator is greater than its antithesis; the Hebrew bible does cut it and is vindicated by a ratio of substantial scientific premises VS nothing [zero?]. Chanting against Creationism per se does not win any points other than displaying unscientific phobia issues.

quote:

---

There is evidence of natural causes.

---

Absolutely not! All that is observable is an intelligent mechanism; the who-done-it or what-caused-it is absolutely vacant. There is no such thing as an old man with a white beard called NATURE; thus no such thing as natural causes; this is just a metaphor for the inexplicable.All that is being said is the observance of a car manual denies a car maker. The precise reverse applies - actually.

Ok, instead of just repeating this, provide the evidence. ....is a load of shit and has nothing to do with scientific evidence.

There, I fixed that for you.

I'm sorry but your continuing to post falsehoods does not constitute evidence of anything but your dishonesty.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:

---

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

---

The evidence of naural causes begin at a later mid point, namely of the observance of an already operational process, not its causes. This does not constitute evidence. The observance how a pineapple can be produced has no relevance or alignment of what caused the mechanism which allows what you call 'natural'; it is NOT a natural phenomena that a pineapple is produced how it is, nor is its precise and critical interaction with the sunlight, earth and environment 'natural' - these are totally un-natural phenomena outside of a precedent and premptive input. A far better explanation is the seed follows its kind, which points to a program and a programmer. Science and logic says don't believe everything you believe!

quote:

---

Ok, instead of just repeating this, provide the evidence.

---

Knock-knock! I did: # 140. Its your turn.

No, you misunderstood. I asked you to provide evidence. What I did NOT ask was for you to to post assertions. You will also notice that I mentioned that you should do so in the appropriate place on the forums.

I'm sorry but your continuing to post falsehoods does not constitute evidence of anything but your dishonesty.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, actually Thomas B. Warren. He appears to be an actual scholar and the debates he participated in appeared to be actual debates on theological and philosphical issues.So why did you mention him here? Are you trying to intimate that he was a "creation science" debator who used the same dishonest tactics that they do? From what I read, he was not such a base and immoral person. Are you trying to tell us that you learned all your own debate tactics from him? We have seen far too well what you have to offer, so I cannot help but wonder why you would slander this person so grossly.What exactly was your point and what does it have to do with the topic of debating "creation science." Remember, your own personal mis-definition of that common and well-established term does not apply.

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