Kent Hovind

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.

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.

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. I certainly could. 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.

Then you have no evidence to say whether it was a creator or if it was nature - both are equally evidenced (according to you).
You have now moved yourself back to square one.

Unlike Dr. Jones, I will not ask you for the evidence that you clearly do not have.
Firstly I would have to educate you about what evidence is, and then I would have to educate you in how to form coherent sentences.
Since no-one else has succeeded in teaching you English - I doubt that it would be possible to do so via a forum.
I am sure that your school was deeply ashamed at how poorly they educated you.
You would probably claim it is dyslexia - if you could spell it - but I think you are simply old-school stupid.

Dawn loves the sound of his own voice.
He would possibly enjoy it more if he could actually understand what he was saying.
But reading your posts wastes valuable time that Dawn could spend listening to himself.I once intentionally posted some gibberish as a reply to one of Dawn's posts.
He replied 3 times, arguing against my gibberish.
What made this even more incredible is the fact that I had told Dawn I had intentionally posted gibberish.

There is more evidence of natural causes than there is of Kent Hovind being a criminal - and Kent Hovind is definitely a criminal.

SummationIn keeping with a part of the theme of this thread, it has been intimated that not only Kent Hovind, but most creationist use unethical tactics during debates.There is no need to believe this is true, nor is there any need to assume the polemicist on the creation side is anything but honest and that their intentions are honourable. Instead you can use your eyes and KNOW they use unethical tactics during debates; are far from honest; and have dishonourable intentions.First and foremost I notice that creationists have the unique ability to change the meanings of complicated terms and words, making them simple, thereby disallowing information that does not fit into their simplistic and inaccurate framework of understanding.A couple of examples are the words science and evidence. Science, creationists say, doesn't have to adhere to any rules. This is of course nonsense.When using the word evidence, creationists insist that there doesn't have to be any evidence to establish their position as valid.When referring to the TOE, however, they insist that all the direct evidence is NOT evidence, even if people have actually witnessed evolution. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit their purposes.Creationists rely on order, law and purpose to describe and establish the evidence for a god. This scientists say is not direct evidence. Scientists then turn right around, having witnessed the actual event of Evolution and insist that the physical evidence they use as establishing the TOE is direct evidence - which it is. The tactics creationists employ in this instance should be obvious.Creationists change the rules to suit their purposesAkin to this position, is creationists' ability to be very intolerable of anyone that disagrees with their positions, which very quickly translates into sarcasm, insults, abuse, belittling, profanity, during these discussions. Dawn Bertot posting history is a very good example of this sort of behaviour.The reason, I believe, that creationists use these tactics during these discussions is to dismay their opponent from participating further in the exchange. These types of tactics are more characteristic during the discussions on-line, but one only need read any thread where a theist involves himself, to witness this type of tactic from creationists.Thirdly I've noticed that creationists argue a position as if the question of the topic of creation and god has been settled, beyond any doubt, intimating and often referring to their opponent as possessing some sort of mental inability, not to see the position as do they.Amazingly, they make a faulty distinction between apologetics and the Scientific Method. They seem not to have the ability to recognize that the word apologetics is just words.Creationists play the dumb card on such words as science or evidence, pretending to not know what and how a person is using that concept.The list, I'm sure, could go on and on on about unethical tactics by creationists.People know that there is evidence of natural causes, but creationists don't have a clue.In short however, it should be obvious to any thinking person, that where an actual event is witnessed, i.e. evolution, there is direct evidence.In short it should be obvious that if zero evidence is used to establish a designer, as is characterized by the fact that no one has ever provided evidence of a designer. The physical evidence does not establish creation, design or a designer.Creationism is belief, which has everything to do with religion and myths.Creationism has no observations. It is not plausible nor probable given the nature of the universe.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.