Kent Hovind

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

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

How many times will you need to be told and how long will you ignore the fact that there is only nature, not causes for nature, if there was an explanable and identifiable cause for nature, as you suggest,we wouldnt be having this discussion Only a moron or someone void of any reasoning ability would make such an ignorant comment. which one are you Jar?If natural causes are evidence of causes of themself, then please present the process from start to finishIf nautral causes are evidence of SOLEY natural causes, then law, order, identifiable purpose and design are proof of a creator.Of course both positions are equal in evidence, to the conclusion of only two logical possibilites. Neither is superior in "evidence", regarless or your idiotic claimPlease demonstrate how nature or natural causes is anything more than a display of nature?please demonstrate how natural causes is an explanation of soley natural causesPlease explain how law, order, identifiable purpose and design are less min evidence, or why the are inadequate to draw a conclusion, like that of natural causes.keeping in mind you have completely bungled even the use of natural causes. There is only nature, not causes for nature.Law, order and purpose are more that sufficient and on the same equalitywith nature causes (as you use the term) to provide evidence of a designerYour obligation will now be to demonstrate why it is not of the same type order and natureMy prediction is that you are to lazy to make a rebuttal and one of your cohorts will pick up the ballCome on Jar, grow a pairDawn BertotDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This comment makes you not only a coward but filty liar. I have now given you sufficent reason to respond to my post. I have given more than an qdequate answer to your query. I have demonstrated it in logical fashion and you still play the foolIf any theist here was to conduct themselves as you are now, we would have been suspended a long time ago. Now I see why you have so many posts, you just keep reproducing the same one over and overDawn Bertot

I have to answer droso's post and I will get back to this oneDawn Bertot

Maybe you would make an attempt at explaining why that is the case. Is Frako the only man amoung you?Could you point me to the post/s, where you or Panda actually engage in debate, that is when your not acting only as irritantsGuys by not reponding to myself or IamJospeh, you are making it clear you dont understand anything concerning argumentation.grow a pair fellas. Your embarrasing yourselfDawn Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As I stated before to which you paid no attention, I agree with this element of aspect of logic, why wouldnt I. What I said was and I provided you with an example, is this. While logic has its uses, it is only an abstract term, the symbols, inferences and its other aspects are abstract, they are not real things.That being the case if falls to reality to set the standards, boundries and limitations for not only what we call logic, but everything else as well. reality only allows to alternatives to answer of the question, why and how things are here Yeap, pretty much what I was saying Why would you think I was afraid to answer such a simple question, who do you think I am, Jar?
Reality only provides two logical alternatives to the reality of exitence, why it is here, how it operates.Those choices or standards are set long before my inclination. They are a result of anything being in existence in the first place, a result of finiteness or eternality, regardless of which one is true
I never said it must mean a God. I said, due to the nature of reality as we know it, it does not resemble anything infinte or eternal in the first place.In the second place reality clearly exhibits signs of design and the creative nature in the physical world, ie, law order and purposeLaw order and purpose dont need someones approval for it to be obvious laws in action. So why wouldnt someone conclude a designer or God?If someone is still not convinced in this connection then it would fall to the fact that this is what reality permits in the nature of choicesIn contrast why would one conclude an infinte universe or existence, from such finite properties. Gods eternal existence would be more reasonable as a choice In written form or oral creationist dont use guile or deciet in debate as was implied by Dwise and others. there point was that in oral we acted like used car salesmen. That is why I refered him to Dr Thomas B Warren, as to why that was not the case. Yeah yeah yeah, just respond to the arguments please. Loosen your neck tie and relax inspector gadgetDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

true they are, but unlike reality, law and order, logic has no bases in reality. it cannot be observed, evaluated independant of the human mind. its properties are completely subjective in nature. true but that reality does not reveal it initiation source. So we are left with only two alternatives that it will allow Taq, your trying to think outside the box. reality limits us to a certain logical choices, because we dont know absolutely. So this is why I say the creation bit is non-religious and is reduced or elevated, depending on how you view it, to a simple logical propositionBy the very nature of the case, if there is a lack of evidence for a creator, then then there would be a lack of evidence for the universe being a cause of soley natural causesbecause both are very reasonable conclusion or atleast logical possibilites, that dont involve logical contradictions and there seems to be no other alternatives, then both should be taught not as religion, but as science. They both involve scientific investigation, whether in the field of natural studies or deductive reasoning taq, in this instance "evidence" is reduced to what is logically possible and demonstratable, not what you can proveI dont need to prove Gods eixstence to know it is a very real probabilityt from the available evidenceif we are allowed to ASSUME that nature is a result of itself, (naturally occuring causes)with no PROOF to support it, (Not demonstrating and setting out the entire process) why would you question the evidence and method I use to conclude the existence of GodOrder, law and purpose are as real and valid as any naturally occuring cause. Wouldnt you agree?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

These are contrived subjective evaluations, they cannot be observed only evaluated after they have been imagined. They are subjective non-realitiesDNA is a reality that can be touched, measured and evaluated, with its appearent design to a purpose No what I am arguing for, is the simple understanding, of what can be logically deduced from the available evidence. I dont need to produce the designer to have good reason to believe in his existencereality doesnt need my opinion or approval for what it will allowA failure to distinguish between what is logically allowable and evidential verses opinion and
preference, often causes much confusionHere is an example. For years evos and creos have torn at eachother over the age of the earth. Both cite and use Gen 1 as thier point counter point.This confusion could be avoided by simply observing the days of Gen 1 and 2 (for what they were intended) as days of the creative act, not consective days of the age of the earth.for example, would it be reasonable to assume that God stopped resting after the seventh day?. Ofcourse not. He stopped creating after the six day of creation, not six consecutive days of earths time period. The is no need for them to be back to back daysThey are days of creation,not days of the age of the earth back to back as consecutive daysThe sixth day could have been a literal 24 period in which he choose to create again at that time, with eons of time between actual literal daysWould we be warrented in assuming because of a literal and hard translation that God never created again, because it says he stopped creating on the seventh day. of course not.The Bible often represents long periods of time as if they happened very quicly or in short periods of timeThis not an attempt to harmonize evo and creation, but an attempt to demonstrate the nature and purpose of Gen in the first placeIt does no harm to the text to believe the earth is much older than six thousand years, because that may not have been what was meant or intended to be conveyed by inspiration in the first placeOnce you remove your attention from the original purpose of Gen in the first place and focus all you energy looking for contradictions or inconsistencies, the original purpose will probably be missedThe seventh day should not be viewed as some strict period of time, but a time when he knew the creation and the creative act were Good or complete. That being the case why should we view the others days as anything less than a creative act, occuring within and what is described as a literal 24 hour"The evening and morning were the sixth day", of creation, not a chronological blow by blow of time. Its pictorial language of literal days of creation, not a calendar. After all, isnt that what Gen is about, creationThere is no real contention between evo and creation because they are not at odds with eachother. The truth or falsity of evo has nothing to do with the validity of the scriptures and vis versaDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Only a person that doesnt understand how reason works would make such a comment. If law order and purpose are not equal in evidence of a designer, to the answer of soley natural causes, then it would follow logically that you could or do have the means to demonstrate your position from start to finish. Not to simply observe some natural causesYour obligation would need to be demonstrated from start to finish or it would follow logically that law order and purpose are as much evidence as a designer without absolute proof, as observing some natural causes, is an answer for soley natural causes for which you have no absolute proofAre you starting to see how evidence and reason work in this instance, Taq? Really taq? Please explain how your positionl and mine, do not stand or fall together. Given the available evidenceDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And the steady state theory was science because the math held up, until they decided it didnt.How long will the current theory last?As I tried to explain before this is not about theories, its about what evidence is available to us and what we are justified in concludingThe good thing about the only two logical possibilites is that no amount of information ever gathered will provide an alternative suggestion, nor will it overthrow those choices. it cant be changed.Even if we found out which one was absolutely true, the proposition would be the same.Now pay close attention. For that reason, given that amount of scientific evidence, both positions should be shouted from the mountain top and defended and presented wihl all the vigor one may muster The proposition of existence is as true as any can be. It is backed by the best possible evidence, realityDawn Bertot

Almost there. Reality, is what it is, laws and all. it doesnt need human measurement or perspectiveHence there is only one actual explanation to the existence of things, while existence itself will allow only two logical possibilites or explanationsThis would be true if there were never anyone to contemplate those alternatives, because that is what eixstence will logically allow, with only one of those being true absolutely it does it in the form of limited existing possibilites, with other clues in the nature and finitness of eixstence itself, for one to make a more distinctive decision Ah, very verbose and very reasonable. Now, since you are sure of your claim, show me your confidence, in the process itself. Where exacally in the process did you define the starting process of soley natural causes.? Could you pinpoint that for me and your can close the door on this argumentOh, you cant, thats right. So evidence would have to fall into what is logically demonstratable, not into a false sense of confidence and complete lack of the evidence you require of myself, correct? You cant be serious. Im sure occams razor does have application where things can be explained. So Ill ask you again, what is it exacally that you think you can explainAs I have explained to many times to mention, there is only A and B here there is not only no need for C, its not logically possible. If God and eternality are the A and B, where did you get a C/ Dont tell me ytouve found an alternative possibilityYour back to square one. Now isnt this interesting, you wish that I provide evidence that the universe is finite and the only evidence that you have that the universe is a result of soley natural causes is because you observe natural cause in action, but not soley natural causesThe evidence i have is the same as yours. I observe the life and death cycle, so on and so forth. Is my evidence as good as yours for your conclusions?This what makes even Hawking's estimation both illogical and unreasonable.OobserveStephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time: these kinds of statements are not only illogical but unreasonable, because they deny the very evidence that logic and reality allow us to observe. we can observe the finite characteristics of a universe that seems to employ those characteristics in nearly every observable context and object.Why would one adopt a propsition of soley natural causes when those very causes are the destruction of all living things in all placesMr Hawking doesnt understand that one CAN observe rational, logical and sound alternatives, provided by reality itself. he disregards the very foundation of any of his discoveries. He sweeps aside the only logical approach and concludes illogically with Bertrand Russell, that finiteness may be true of somethings but not all things.But i suppose it helps sell booksWhy would one theorize that such things could be the cause of themselves. its only when one disregards common sense, that would allow them to make such comments as Mr Hawking'sEven his skills wont allow him to answer such questions and they wonder why any thinking person wont buy into thier crapola I dont know what he believes or teaches. perhaps you could provide an example of his evasionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Great, now present the evidence that demonstrates that it is by SOLEY natural causesif and when you cant provide that I will know you dont have the information you need, to make the implication you are attempting My evidence for the creator is the same as your evidence that existence is soley by natural causes. its called, existence, law, order,, purpose and designJust demonstrate that the things i have mentioned dont eixist or that they can eixst soley by themself and you will have demonstrated it to not be evidenceSince I have now provided what you requested it is your obligation as an debater to respond to that rebuttalDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since I have now provided what you requested it is your obligation as an debater to respond to that rebuttalDont keep embarrasing yourself by avoiding the points and information You requested and I have providedDo we need to put a mirror under your nose to see if you are still aliveMy arguments are valid and I have provided what you have requestedif you cant answer the arguments atleast answer the questionsYour starting to look patheticDawn Bertot

Then demonstrate it in argument form, that is what this website is founded uponSince I have now provided what you requested it is your obligation as an debater to respond to that rebuttalDont keep embarrasing yourself by avoiding the points and information You requested and I have providedDo we need to put a mirror under your nose to see if you are still aliveMy arguments are valid and I have provided what you have requestedif you cant answer the arguments atleast answer the questionsYour starting to look patheticDawn Bertot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------