Kent Hovind

Thread copied here from the Kent Hovind thread in the Coffee House forum.

Good for you, but as expected, utterly irrelevant.No one cares what you accept, that has NOTHING to do with truth or reality.Please provide evidence I ever referred to "MR/MRS/MS NATURE"It rained, Rain is natural. The puddle filled. That is natural.I said Natural cause.I have a puddle in my back yard, the cause is that it rained.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 and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.It really is that simple.

Hey Jar,I get the distinct impression you may go hungry with your request.I say just keep asking until you get too bored to repost it.It is a good way for you to not get sidetracked by the other bullshit arguements.

Those are what I call "attractive rabbit holes". IAJ and DB as well as Buz and many others love creating attractive rabbit holes and once you enter you find yourself in Wonderland along with the small cakes that say "Eat Me".

Logic is an abstract term we use to help us understand the real world. the real world or reality sets the parameters of what is or is not rational. while symbolic and mathmatical logic have their uses they are nontheless abstract conceptsabstract words and concepts aside rational is initially obatined in what reality and the real word will allowAgain, the real world allows us only two alternatives as to the explanation of existence. Any other explanation will fall within these two or be a combination of those two.now pay close attention. reality, not abstract ideas sets the parameters for what is rational. IOWs, reality is logic itself. It gives me the boundries and limitations of my applied reasoning, not the other way aroundSo creationism is what reality will allow by the choices in that context.Since reality doesnt give us absolute proof of how things are here, it falls to a logical proposition of possibilites. those possibiltes have to mirror what is allowed by realityas you might guess the choices are limited from a physical and logical standpointYour explanation of what logic is, is a single use of its purpose. its main use is defined by the physical world of reality No one starts with the assumption of Gods existence. It is deduced from physical realites. Youve got it backwards Instead of insisting I have nothing to offer, you need to actually respond to the actual arguments I have presentedNo one said written debates werent more exhaustive or comprehensive. Your implication was that creationist are able to use trickery in oral debates. Orcourse the is nonesense and stupidity of the highest order is this another way of saying you cant or wont make an attempt at a rebuttal. Give it an actual try and see how fun it can beplease tell me your not another Dwise in the area of debate.In fairness dewise is an excellent writer and communicator. he really should publish stuff, he has a flare for it. In contrast he is less than qualified to debate philosophical ideasDawn Bertot

And your a coward an never make an attempt at a rebuttal. Why you think people dont notice that is beyond medawn bertot

Which specific physical realities led you to conclude that God existed?

Good for you, but as expected, utterly irrelevant.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 and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.It really is that simple.

And you're a coward and never make an attempt at supporting your stupid assertions. Why you think that people don't notice is beyond me.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.We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

Religious only implies that a higher power exists, being an intelligent designer.The term religion connotes beliefs relative to the designer/creator. Though the science of creationism research has a religious connotation, the evidence research regarding creationism and intelligent design, study of history, doing archeological research, etc so as to gather evidence data, substantiating the credibility of prophetic statements, cultures cited from the Bible, people, places and kingdoms, etc are all aspects of the science of creationism. These are not practicing religion perse.There are many logical aspects of creationism. ID more logically explains the order and complexity than the notion that chaos naturally emerged into order.That nearly all cultures of the world since the recording of history (abe: have been religious) is just one of many logical reasons to believe higher intelligences exist in the universe.Whether or not you believe Lennart Moller's marine research in Aqaba proved anything, he was not practicing his religion, what ever it be. He was doing science. No? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

No, of course he was not doing science, he was making a movie to sell to the easily fooled.

I did a search for information on Moller's claims. One website had the following (along with a couple of pictures):

​

The authenticity of Wyatt's claim has been validated with the discovery of the remains of ancient Egyptian army chariots lying at the bottom of an underwater land bridge connecting Sinai to Saudi Arabia. Many coral encrusted chariot wheels, and a gilded four spoked chariot wheel were found. Fossilized human and horse bones were also recovered, but carbon dating was not possible.

I don't trust this at all. No reputable archaeologists comes back making fantastic claims about what he found and then shows pictures that may or may not be what he claims.Reputable archaeologists bring back the materials in question and conduct meticulous studies on them. Only when they can document their claims several times over do they publish!I would want to see measurements, to see if they matched Egyptian chariot wheels in size. I would want to see analysis of the wood and other materials. And metalurgical analyses. And radiocarbon dating (not sure what they were dating, and why they couldn't get dates). And multiple examples of those wheels, not just one. And most of all, not just a couple of vague pictures.You may want to accept the results because they agree with your biases, but real archaeology doesn't work that way.There is nothing that will send skeptics running faster than well-documented evidence. But why are all these claims you are making so poorly-documented?

Coyote, you totally evaded all of my message. You did not address any of the pertinent points I made (abe regarding creationism doing science.)(abe: Regarding the Mollar creation research, )I did not ask you about Ron Wyatt. My question was regarding renowned marine biologist Lennart Moller's science ship & crew and the research they did regarding the evidence they allege to be in the gulf.Was Lennart Moller and his crew practicing religion, doing this research or were they doing science which was intended to falsify/verify the evidence alleged to be in the area relative to the Biblical account of the Exodus event?(abe: You were trying to lead off topic, turning this into another Exodus debate. That is not where I'm going here. It's about the science/religion question. ) Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

One such as yourself cannot be taken seriously if you do not respond to my posts and the particular arguments therein. Let me know when your are ready to be something other than a parrotDawn Bertot

You do not make arguments. You rely on solipsisms.When you want to talk about evidence and reality then we will be more than willing to discuss.