Thread Reopen Requests 2

The thread is the Meaning of meaning.

My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread it was my attempt to demonstrate meaning by purpose of evidence available, and the rules of evidence, which guides ones decisions in determining what is reasonable and acceptable as factual

I think we are proceeding along that line, if it is possible to reopen it, we can work twords that goal

Thanks for your consideration

Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I suggest if you wish to continue that line of discussion, you propose a new thread.

Thanks for merging my names, that was not some sneeky attempt by myself.

How about the title 'The obvious desgn of desgn' and we pick up where we left off, without me writting out an OP, is that possible?

Or do I need an OP

Dawn Bertot

Percy as concerns my proposal on the design question, i am happy to let you choose whatever title and points you see as acceptable from that which I have set out

Write it out and I wiil sign it

Dawn Bertot

If you want to work with me to find some common ground then I will reopen the thread proposal.

sounds good, what do i need to do?

Reference, the Prophecy vs freewill.

We/They do tend to get side racked, but I believe I can keep it on track with IMJ and Butterfly as I was attempting in my last post to IMJ. i also encouraged them both to stay on topic because I knew the hammer was fixing to fall.

Request it be reopened due to the fact that there is much information to be covered in that connection

Thanks,

Dawn Bertot

That thread hasn't been on topic since about five posts in, with you, IMJ, and Butterfly largely to blame for the derailing. Jon

Wrong, I have tried to maintain a semblance of the thread while addressing those other issues

D Bertot

Myself and Butterfly, AKA, mallethead, would like to use the following and our final summations in the Kent hovind thread to reopen it or start a new one concerning, debate tactics used by both sides

I have suggested to Butterfly the Title 'Debate styles and tactics used by Creationist and Evolutionist

Thanks for you consideration in advance

D Bertot

Butterfly writes

Science and evidence have definitions. All words have definitions. The standard definition of words like science, evidence, theory, supernatural, logic etc apply to everyone. Making up your own incorrect definition to a word does not improve your arguement, it just makes it confusing. Just taking Dawns summation as a source of an example, there is obvious misrepresentation or total incorrect usage of the following words and phrases : evidence, science, secular fundamental humanist, apologetics, scientific method, natural causes (I personaly have written an extensive reply to Dawn illustrating how to correctly use the term). This sort of thing is relatively common amongst creationist debaters. Another tactic often used is to misinterpret or misrepresent facts in order to confuse the argument. For example, using Dawn again because he is such a good source of poor arguements. When refering to the TOE, however, they insist thier is direct evidence, even if, like creationism,no one actually wittnessed that event. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit thier purposes and demand and insist that we provide what they are not required to establish the position as valid There are two examples of common, dishonest arguement here. There is misrepresentation of the ToE. This sentence suggests that evolution is not currently occuring. Even Dawn must know that this is not true. But this is an example used by many creationists, not just Dawn Bertot. I am only using this as an example as it is handy. This can only be deliberate dishonesty in order to further his own cause. He also suggests that followers of the ToE are changing the word evidence to further their cause when this is also not true.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.