Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 52 (9184 total)
 1 online now: dwise1 Newest Member: paulwilliam Post Volume: Total: 918,404 Year: 5,661/9,624 Month: 67/619 Week: 0/56 Day: 0/35 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Side Orders Free For All

# Kent Hovind

Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5

 Message 211 of 349 (627504) 08-02-2011 4:37 PM Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 4:31 PM

Re: Logic demands
As expected, your post is utterly irrelevant and simply more false assertions.
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:52 PM jar has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010

 (2)
 Message 212 of 349 (627507) 08-02-2011 4:41 PM Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 4:31 PM

Re: Logic demands
then law, order, identifiable purpose and design are proof of a creator.
So
so laws like a2+b2=c2 is evidence of a creator ????
Or is this law just a natural property of a right angle triangle ????
Or do you have any other law in mind ???
And what is this order i keep hearing about all i see is randomness organizing itself according to its properties perfectly natural. Like throwing a coin 100000 times the number of times it lands on heads or tails "organises" itself do to its properties.
Please 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 causes
natural cause an apple falls down a tree accelerating at roughly 10 meters per second do to the properties of the earth whos mass provides a gravitational force that pulls the apple twords the earth. No supernatural causes needed.
Please 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.
Because laws are the way things behave do to the properties they have like things with a higher mass need more energy to move as fast then things with less mass. Or a2+b2=c2 is a property of a right angle triangle,
no creator or designer or magic unicorn needed for laws or the caos you call order.
keeping in mind you have completely bungled even the use of natural causes. There is only nature, not causes for nature.
You are arguing like the ancient Greeks argued someone had to have lit the stars on fire so logically there has to be a magic person with a lighter to do that.
If an anwser is not known like what "created/lit" our universe that does not mean that magic man had to do it it just means WE DO NOT KNOW YET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:55 PM frako has not replied Message 260 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 5:56 PM frako has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (3)
 Message 213 of 349 (627512) 08-02-2011 4:52 PM Reply to: Message 211 by jar08-02-2011 4:37 PM

Re: Logic demands
Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
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 fool
If 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 over
Dawn Bertot

 This message is a reply to: Message 211 by jar, posted 08-02-2011 4:37 PM jar has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 215 by jar, posted 08-02-2011 5:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 218 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 5:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 Message 214 of 349 (627513) 08-02-2011 4:55 PM Reply to: Message 212 by frako08-02-2011 4:41 PM

Re: Logic demands
If an anwser is not known like what "created/lit" our universe that does not mean that magic man had to do it it just means WE DO NOT KNOW YET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to answer droso's post and I will get back to this one
Dawn Bertot

 This message is a reply to: Message 212 by frako, posted 08-02-2011 4:41 PM frako has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5

 Message 215 of 349 (627521) 08-02-2011 5:10 PM Reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 4:52 PM

Re: Logic demands
I am a theist, a devout Christian type Theist.
As expected, your post is utterly irrelevant and simply more false assertions.
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 6:22 PM jar has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

 Message 216 of 349 (627525) 08-02-2011 5:20 PM Reply to: Message 209 by Drosophilla08-02-2011 1:55 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Drosophilla writes:
Is English your primary language? If not then fair enough, I can make allowance for that and just be patient. If English is your primary language - don't try to be deceitful with its meaning.
Dawn was raised and educated in America and continued to live there for many years (and maybe still does).
There are not many possible reasons for his lack of ability at English - but the cause has not yet been diagnosed on this forum.
He also rejects any suggestion that his English is abnormal.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 209 by Drosophilla, posted 08-02-2011 1:55 PM Drosophilla has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 217 by Drosophilla, posted 08-02-2011 5:25 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009

 Message 217 of 349 (627527) 08-02-2011 5:25 PM Reply to: Message 216 by Panda08-02-2011 5:20 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Dawn was raised and educated in America and continued to live there for many years (and maybe still does).
There are not many possible reasons for his lack of ability at English - but the cause has not yet been diagnosed on this forum.
He also rejects any suggestion that his English is abnormal.
Thanks for that Panda. I must say I'm somewhat bemused by an English-speaking individual managing to hash up the beauty of the English language so much....one is almost tempted to think it is done on purpose!
Edited by Drosophilla, : typo corrected

 This message is a reply to: Message 216 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 5:20 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

 Message 218 of 349 (627528) 08-02-2011 5:28 PM Reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 4:52 PM

Re: Logic demands
Dawn Bertot writes:
jar writes:
Your continued posting of absolute falsehoods and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
If any theist here was to conduct themselves as you are now, we would have been suspended a long time ago.
Since jar is a theist, I will add this to your growing list of falsehoods.
Each time you post a falsehood or an irrelevancy, you just look more and more like the "coward" and "filty[sic] liar" you accuse others of being.

 This message is a reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (1)
 Message 219 of 349 (627544) 08-02-2011 6:22 PM Reply to: Message 215 by jar08-02-2011 5:10 PM

Re: Logic demands
continued posting of absolute falsehoods and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
It really is that simple.
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 irritants
Guys by not reponding to myself or IamJospeh, you are making it clear you dont understand anything concerning argumentation.
grow a pair fellas. Your embarrasing yourself
Dawn
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 215 by jar, posted 08-02-2011 5:10 PM jar has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 220 by jar, posted 08-02-2011 6:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied Message 222 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 6:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied Message 227 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-02-2011 9:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5

 Message 220 of 349 (627545) 08-02-2011 6:27 PM Reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 6:22 PM

Re: Logic demands
As expected, your post is 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 irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

 This message is a reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 6:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member

 (1)
 Message 221 of 349 (627546) 08-02-2011 6:35 PM Reply to: Message 208 by Coyote08-02-2011 11:00 AM

Re: Coyote's (abe: Creation Science) Evasion
Coyote writes:
In terms of archaeology -- no, they were not doing science.
Coyote, my question criteria did not call for your rendition of what is science. I simply ask you, were they doing science or practicing religion with their research ship and crew?
Not all scientists come to the same conclusions. Surely you know that. Which is it? What were they doing out there that does not come under the definition of science? Certainly they were not practicing religion. Likely some of the crew were not even religious.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

 This message is a reply to: Message 208 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2011 11:00 AM Coyote has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 226 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2011 8:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010

 Message 222 of 349 (627547) 08-02-2011 6:37 PM Reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 6:22 PM

Re: Logic demands
Dawn Bertot writes:
continued posting of absolute falsehoods and irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
Maybe you would make an attempt at explaining why that is the case.
After you have answered our repeated requests to present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution, then we will explain why posting falsehoods doesn't make them true.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Could you point me to the post/s, where you or Panda actually engage in debate
I certainly could.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Guys by not reponding to myself or IamJospeh, you are making it clear you dont understand anything concerning argumentation.
Dawn, by not responding to myself or jar, you are making it clear you don't understand anything concerning argumentation.
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 irrelevancies does not make them true or relevant.
It really is that simple.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 6:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10204
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1

 Message 223 of 349 (627549) 08-02-2011 6:56 PM Reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 4:31 PM

Re: Logic demands
. . . law, order, identifiable purpose and design are proof of a creator.
Of course both positions are equal in evidence,. . .
No, they are not. You have yet to support the argument that law, order, and identifiable purpose are signs of creator and a creator alone with evidence.
Please 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 causes
Natural causes are just that, natural causes. You are suggesting supernatural causes, and are doing so without any observations of supernatural causation, nor evidence of it.
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 designer
Why? How are law, order, and purpose evidence of a designer? It would seem to me that law, order, and purpose are evidence of law, order and purpose in the same way that natural causes are evidence of natural causes.
My prediction is that you are to lazy to make a rebuttal and one of your cohorts will pick up the ball
Claims made without evidence refute themselves.

 This message is a reply to: Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 4:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 7:03 PM Taq has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 218 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

 (2)
 Message 224 of 349 (627551) 08-02-2011 7:07 PM Reply to: Message 209 by Drosophilla08-02-2011 1:55 PM

Re: Debating creationists
Absolutely not! If you can say that you haven't got the foggiest notion of logic function. Logic deals with VALIDITY OF ARGUMENTS and this has NOTHING to do with reality.
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
Even quantum physics, whose maths is often the only way we can ‘understand’ what it is about — gets confirmation in the REAL WORLD by ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE.
Yeap, pretty much what I was saying
Please provide the physical realities that lead to the deduction of God's existence. Please state precisely why the realities stated imply must mean a God. Please note - do not ignore this request - I will hound you mercilessly for the answer otherwise!!
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 purpose
Law 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 choices
In contrast why would one conclude an infinte universe or existence, from such finite properties. Gods eternal existence would be more reasonable as a choice
1. What 'principle' are you referring to - it's not at all clear. Please state your case rather than make oblique references to the debate at hand.....what principle?
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.
Is English your primary language? If not then fair enough, I can make allowance for that and just be patient. If English is your primary language - don't try to be deceitful with its meaning. I WILL call you on attempted disingenuousness!
Yeah yeah yeah, just respond to the arguments please. Loosen your neck tie and relax inspector gadget
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 209 by Drosophilla, posted 08-02-2011 1:55 PM Drosophilla has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 225 by Taq, posted 08-02-2011 7:50 PM Dawn Bertot has replied Message 256 by Drosophilla, posted 08-04-2011 4:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10204
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1

 (2)
 Message 225 of 349 (627555) 08-02-2011 7:50 PM Reply to: Message 224 by Dawn Bertot08-02-2011 7:07 PM

Re: Debating creationists
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.
The same applies to law, order, and purpose. These are abstract terms as well.
reality only allows to alternatives to answer of the question, why and how things are here
Reality offers no alternatives. There is only one reality. Period.
Reality only provides two logical alternatives to the reality of exitence, why it is here, how it operates.
Again, reality offers no alternatives. There is only the way things are. That's it. If you want to claim that things are a certain way, then you need to show us evidence that this is so.
So why wouldnt someone conclude a designer or God?
Why would they, given the absence of evidence for 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 choices
Again, there is only reality. Not choices. Not possibilities. Just reality.
Gods eternal existence would be more reasonable as a choice
Where is the evience that God exists, or that God is eternal? You have yet to supply this evidence.

 This message is a reply to: Message 224 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-02-2011 7:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-06-2011 5:29 PM Taq has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)