Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deconversion experiences
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 99 of 299 (593702)
11-28-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nwr
11-28-2010 3:49 PM


Re: Catch 22
That's my take on it, too. And the more I study it, the clearer it becomes that it is not designed.
Dont worry to much ICDESIGN, this is the MO for these fellows here at this board. They require the stictest evidence from any one elses position, but do not require the same of thiers when challenged on Macro-evolution, or the beliefe that the universe or whatever is a product of purely natural causes.
When pushed on it they retreat to, well we dont worry about such things, or those are irrelevant questions.
So dont be to bothered by thier double standard or thier lack of ability to provide hard evidence in those areas either
Thier also permitted to go as far off topic as they wish, belittle and demean as much as they choose without suspension or being told to quite participating in any given thread
Such is life here at the EVC forum.
heres a test ICDESIGN, ask them to provide the same type of evidence for those issues I presented above and watch the excuses and complaints start to fly
The only way to engage such fellows in such questions as you have presented on design is in a public formal debate, where one is not fettered by such limitations
But amazingly no one will step up to the plate
But to keep on topic here I can say I have never seen a single "argument" presented by evos or atheist that even began to sway my beliefs even slightly in the opposite direction
I was priviledged to be raised where debate was not only practiced but encouraged to defend ones faith
I was privileged to have the best debaters and apologists reason could offer, through the years
I have seen and participated in the best of the polemic scene and have saw the skeptics positions demolished time after time
We encourage any and all that will, to step up to the plate to debate design and anyother issues in that connection
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nwr, posted 11-28-2010 3:49 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Meldinoor, posted 11-29-2010 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 157 of 299 (594148)
12-02-2010 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by articulett
11-28-2010 10:49 PM


Re: Catch 22
Certainly any "design" is flawed, right? You admit humans are imperfect. If an intelligent designer created life, he created it imperfectly. And if you believe the Jesus story than this imperfect designer tries to "fix" his imperfect designs by flooding the earth (which didn't work) and then having his son (who is really him) sacrificed (to himself) to try and fix the flaws which he should have known about if omniscient.
More "words without knowledge"
I can certainly win any debate on design and have since I have been doing it. But isnt it amazing that the best answers always come from the Almighty's mouth
Meldinoor and Articulett, If you dont listen to anything else, listen to the words and pay close attention to all the words of the lord before you make such a leap
The Bible is set apart from any other religious work. Indeed arguments seldom sway people to and from God, but when you listen to the heart of his word, it will convince you
Listen, Job 38
The LORD Speaks
1 " Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 Who is this that obscures my plans
with WORDS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
8 Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
12 Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.
16 Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.
19 What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!
22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?
34 Can you raise your voice to the clouds
and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
39 Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
when its young cry out to God
and wander about for lack of food?"
Amazing, its more than words, its knowledge and inspiration
"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment. "
Design baby design
This is a simple exercise in logic by the Lord. You understand nothing and I was there, he says, and you were not. Its that hard and that simple
I love those words, "Who is this that obscures my plans, with words without knowledge"
I love the Lords logic, its flawless
From 39:26
Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom
and spread its wings toward the south? "
Now read 39-41
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.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by articulett, posted 11-28-2010 10:49 PM articulett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 3:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 159 by dwise1, posted 12-02-2010 4:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 167 by bluescat48, posted 12-02-2010 5:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 163 of 299 (594211)
12-02-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Meldinoor
12-02-2010 3:24 AM


Re: Is that the best you've got?
I'd like to try whatever you've been smoking! Does the rain have a father? From whose womb comes the ice? I think you may be confusing sex with meteorology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So... what do a bunch of bronze age misconceptions of how the world works have to do with Intelligent Design?
Wow, you really missed the point of the whole chapter didnt you?. His point was you werent there, I was. You are speaking words without knowledge
Were you there M, when all this transpired
His point is, if you werent shut your pie whole or provide knowledge that you were there and can demonstrate that you were
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 3:24 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 4:50 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
(1)
Message 164 of 299 (594212)
12-02-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by dwise1
12-02-2010 4:09 AM


Re: The slow Navy dude
OH YOU STUPID BITCH!!!!
Yes, I know that you are a GUY!!!
So why the FRAK are you HIDING behind a WOMAN'S name? DO NOT EVEN BEGIN TO ATTEMPT TO BESMIRCH THE NOBEL NAME OF THAT US NAVY WAR HERO, DORIS MILLER! Why are you cowardly hiding behind a WOMAN's name?
I know navy people are slow, but I had no idea how slow. Its my name Moron
Very funny, you frackin' liar!
Gee, what do the words of Liars for the Lord tell us about the Lord? That it's all lies? Duhhh?????
Anger management classes are in order I believe, its my real name Moron
In a spoken format, confusing nonsense, Sid-Caeser-esque double-talk (foreign-language dialogue which sounds to the non-native speaker as if it were in that foreign language, but which an actual speaker of that language immediately identifies as puse nonsense), cannot be responded to, because it is blithering nonsense. But in a written format, then your words can be examined and assessed as to their actual worth. How do your written words assess? As blithering nonsense!.
Read the entire, Does the IDM follow the SM thread, Ive made it so simple a childish child, such as yourself could understand it
How about a formal public debate on design and why it should be taught in the science classroom? Be a Man and step up to the plate
M has lost his faith for no reason
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by dwise1, posted 12-02-2010 4:09 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2010 4:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 169 by Panda, posted 12-02-2010 5:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 12-02-2010 6:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 168 of 299 (594223)
12-02-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Meldinoor
12-02-2010 4:50 PM


Re: Is that the best you've got?
Nope,
Thank you, so yours are words, without knowledge. You dont have platform to question diddly
and neither was He. As is apparent by his complete lack of understanding for how the world works and how it formed.
Or maybe he is speaking to someone as simple as yourself, that is, if he were to explain to you personally in a specific sense exacally how he exists and creates things, you would understand them no better, than, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
I cant really explain in specific detail exacally what the feeling or experince of combat is now can I, unless I have witnessed and experinced it personally can I?
Gods point and logic stands. You dont understand diddly. Youve abandonded your belief without reason or cause
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 4:50 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Panda, posted 12-02-2010 5:50 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 173 by Meldinoor, posted 12-02-2010 7:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 175 of 299 (594736)
12-04-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by bluescat48
12-03-2010 12:26 AM


Re: Catch 22
Not until you can show that design exists, not as compared to human designed articles , but as to the natural world. and not with bronze aged myths, as the book of Job.
The key word in your above sentence is SHOW. I dont think you or most of the other fellows actually understand that you are mistakenly confusing the word Prove for the word SHOW.
In the absence of that which is provable concerning matters and events that no longer available to us, all we have or can Show, is that which is logically deduced. Since order is obviously a valid deduction of design, all that needs to be demonstrated (shown)is the logical probabilites of said design, against the clearly obvious order and law in nature
In this instance, since the order cooroborates it and we no longer have absolute prove of any of the actual events of the past, all that is needed is that which is deduced logically
Watch how it works on your side of the fence, so to speak.
You have no direct absolute evidence of evolution or macro-evolution, because those events and conditions no longer exist. the best you can do from the available evidence (as order and law on my side), such as change in time,strata and change within species is DEDUCE that said evolution took place
But you are limited to what can be logically deduced, without proving it absolutely
Design, a designer and "evolution" are deduced, they are not and cannot be SHOWN in the way you are using the word
You apply the word 'show' to me as if you have demonstrated or SHOWN, your position as absolute proof. Thus, unwittingly used one set of rules for yourself and another for me
Both of these positions, evo and design are demonstratable in an investigative manner, but both are conclusions with the exact same kind of "evidence"
Now let anyone that thinks they can, step up and demonstrate why this is not valid
M, yourself, and others have abandoned you positions of faith or belief without thinking things through
It is these myths that led to my deconversion. Having been indoctrinated into these at the "totally mature age of 5," yes
One would wonder why you consider design a myth. Its probably due to the fact that you dont understand how evidence we use, to formulate thoeries and hypethosis are actually constructed
Dawn Bertot
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by bluescat48, posted 12-03-2010 12:26 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2010 11:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 181 by bluescat48, posted 12-05-2010 12:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 177 of 299 (594739)
12-04-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by dwise1
12-02-2010 6:51 PM


Re: The slow Navy dude
Before I could even begin to consider it, I would need to insist on certain conditions to which you would need to be very strictly bound. Here are a few to start with:
1. It would need to be written rather than spoken. That is to prevent you from breaking into a series of incoherent Gish Gallops. Not that you wouldn't try it anyway, but at least when it's in writing then we can still have some chance of trying to extract some kind of meaning from your incomprehsible blather.
2. You would need to stop spewing bullshit. Yeah, I know, if we take that away from you then you won't have anything to say.
3. You would need to make an actual effort to communicate.
Since more than 2200 posts by you have demonstrated that you are incapable of meeting any of those conditions, ...
So this is a sad, evasive way of saying you are not man enough to stand in the polemic arena, in a formal way, to defend what you believe
Ok, Ill take it as a concession
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by dwise1, posted 12-02-2010 6:51 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by dwise1, posted 12-05-2010 12:05 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 178 of 299 (594740)
12-04-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Coyote
12-04-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Catch 22
I'd respond, but it would all be off topic.
Take it to another thread. We'll refute it there, and you'll ignore the evidence we present same as always.
Its not off topic because BC, used it as an example of his deconversion process. But it would be interesting to see how you would refute logic as sound as that I have presented
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2010 11:01 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 12-04-2010 11:10 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 183 of 299 (594940)
12-05-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by dwise1
12-05-2010 12:05 AM


Re: The slow IDist
I am making no concession whatsoever. I am insisting that any debate be an actual debate.
Instead, you are refusing to engage in actual debate, or in any actual discussion for that matter, which you have consistent been doing ever since you first posted on this forum.
So you are conceding that you have no intention of engaging in an actual debate and that your "challenge" is nothing more than the rest of what you post here, bullshit.
You left out the rest of my post, in particular:
I have {read what you had written in that thread}. You cannot write. You cannot put coherent thoughts together. Nobody can understand you. And you refuse to make any attempt to communicate. For that matter, you vehemently oppose the very thought of being asked to try to communicate.
In an actual debate, you will need to put coherent thoughts together, something that you have proven yourself to be incapable of. In an actual debate, you will need to express your thoughts and arguments in such a manner that they can be understood, something that you have proven yourself to be incapable of. In an actual debate, you will need to communicate, something that you have not only proven yourself to be incapable of, but you vehemently oppose the very idea.
Actual debate, Dawn, not the bullshit con-job that you normally pull on the public.
Since none of the above is true in any form or fashion, you can drop the usual intimidation tactics, they dont and have never worked on me. Your wasting precious time and space with alot of verbage that is rolling off of my back, like the water off a ducks back
But you concede that you have no intention of engaging in an actual debate. Not man enough for it, eh?
Im sorry, where did I have, "no intention of engaging in an actual debate"
Where is the line that suggest as much? I been begging you to do it and all I get is complaints about one thing and another
In the meantime, you still need to provide an actual case of ID using the scientific method. I understand you refusal to provide it, since you know of none.
Not only have I done this numerous times now, no argument has been offered as to why any methodical investigation such as that I have offered or something in the nature of Behe's is not a scientific investigation
And thats the point isnt it?
There is no such thing as a SM or an IDM, it just an investigation of a physical and scientific venture.
Just as there is no such thing as 'reverse prejudice', because it is just 'prejudice', there is also no SM and IDM, its just investigation with physical properties to the conclusion of this or that
Most "scientist" like to make this big distinction for basically two reasons.
1. To make it appear as though they have something superior and therefore better in the nature of investigation. They do not
2. They like to make the imaginary distinction, because they dont like what the design conclusion implies or involves
There are not two methodologies, there is just a scientific investigation, with results and conclusions on both sides
thing, that your case does not really exist, and that you are no
I have no idea what this means, so Ill wait for your reply
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by dwise1, posted 12-05-2010 12:05 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Panda, posted 12-05-2010 6:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 189 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2010 2:12 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 185 of 299 (594944)
12-05-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by bluescat48
12-05-2010 12:17 AM


Re: Catch 22
duce an answer from the periodic law, or oxidation-reduction or radioactive decay through studying the concepts with what my question is. How can I do that with design when there is nothing to deduce design from when there is no theory of design.
Why would you make such a comment when order and law can be directly observed. Order and law in nature and the laws it follows dont need your approval for it to be correct and demonstratable any more than change in species needs a theory for it to be correct, visible and demonstratable
What you are missing BC is that these "scientists", teach and conclude evolution and macro-evolution as a part of thier science in the classroom. As such they are teaching conclusions that are not provable.
Yet, they believe the conclusion is justified, given the evidence. Order and law follow the same rule,of fact gathering and evidence in this connection. As such it carries the same weight as any theory derived using the exact same method
Your conclusions of evo and macro evo follow all the same rules concerning events where the direct evidence is no longer directly available, correct?
If not show me why
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bluescat48, posted 12-05-2010 12:17 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by bluescat48, posted 12-05-2010 7:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 186 of 299 (594945)
12-05-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Panda
12-05-2010 6:29 PM


Re: The slow IDist
What is your native tongue?
We have people on this forum that speak multiple languages.
Maybe you would have greater success using your first language and having others translate.
Your wasting your time son, intimidation is not a substitute for an actual response to an argument.
Try actually responding to an argument, you might like it. Its called debating, you might remember it
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Panda, posted 12-05-2010 6:29 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Panda, posted 12-05-2010 7:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 190 of 299 (594986)
12-06-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by dwise1
12-06-2010 2:12 AM


Re: The slow IDist
Now, Dawn, if you disagree, then please explain how you think that spewing double-talk bullshit and constantly insulting your audience is supposed to qualify as an actual debate or discussion.
And I have explained to you to many times now, that complaining about something and demonstrating it are two different things
I have also asked you to provide the line or sentence that is not understandable. As of yet all you do is complain and bitch.
I gave you a short list of just a few of the many things that are needed for you to engage in an actual debate or discussion and you reject them outright. Since you reject conditions that are absolutely necessary for actual debate, you are rejecting actual debate.
No dewise, those were a list of things you complained that I had done or did not do. You never provided evidence of any of those claims, they were simply bitch type complaints, with no essence or substance. Why should I, or why do I need to, respond to something for which you have provided no evidence. provide the evidence of 'gibberish', then I will respond to it, as a substantiated assertion
The above quote from you is quite possibly the silliest thing I have ever read. Me not meeting your imaginary tenets is not the same as me refusing to debate. so where is the line or sentence where I refused to debate design
That isn't just bullshit, but it's a flat-out lie. You never have provided an actual case of ID using the scientific method. If you had, then why did Admin have to make this demand, repeatedly? (Message 323):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please stop posting to this thread until you can provide an example of ID research following all the steps of the scientific method in the point-by-point style requested by Bluejay:
You did not read or quote the entirity of my last post Dewise. I stated that no argument was put forth to demonstrate that what I had offered in that connection was not a scientific test.
Admin has the right to remove anyone for any reason they see fit. But that is not the same as providing an argument, as to why what I or Marc9000, was or is not a scientific test
No one should lose thier faith or belief in a designer, simply because they believe our research is not a SM. One needs to provide arguments and reasons, why such are not actual tests and valid conclusions
Straggler made an attempt but it failed in the respect that all tests do not need to be complicated or involved to be a test or scientific in nature
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2010 2:12 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 191 of 299 (594988)
12-06-2010 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by bluescat48
12-05-2010 7:19 PM


Re: Catch 22
What they are teaching has physical evidence to back it up.
So what exacally is IT, that THEY are teaching?
The immediate evidence of a physical nature, will only allow that change took place
The immediate evidence of a physical nature, will only allow that order and law are present
Those are the only demonstratable facts that are provable, from immediate and present evidence
The best answer for the data available is evolution. Just because you see the world through ID colored glasses doesn't mean it is unless there is evidence to back it up.
Right here BC is where your reasoning falls apart and your double standard begins
I know you honestly believe that evolution is a better explanation, than design or creation, but in neither instance, outside of direct revelation, can one make a "best answer", because both positions suffer from the same limitations
Both positions are forced to use the same physical evidence and scientific methods to come to very valid conclusions in both instances
It would be funny, if it were not so serious, that you accuse me of having ID colored glasses, when neither position has an advantage over the other, when left to the evidence
Provide the particle of evidence or argument that will allow you conclusions to be better than design. Do this from the physical evidence or in a logical form and I will show you that it is not possible
its all the same method and the conclusions are based n the same methods
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by bluescat48, posted 12-05-2010 7:19 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-06-2010 5:29 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 193 by Meddle, posted 12-06-2010 5:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 194 by frako, posted 12-06-2010 6:34 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 207 by bluescat48, posted 12-06-2010 9:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 204 of 299 (595138)
12-06-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AdminPD
12-06-2010 6:43 PM


Re: Topic Please
Stay on topic. This thread is a place for people to present their personal deconversion experiences and discuss those experiences.
Did I mention stay on topic.
I dont see a line in this post , that says do not respond to this post, so I hope I am not out of order here.
So, as not to deviate from Ms present discussion, is there a place I can respond to post 193, 194 and 203, that have been presented in this thread?
I don't want to go further off topic
Thanks for your consideration in this matter
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AdminPD, posted 12-06-2010 6:43 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by AdminPD, posted 12-07-2010 5:01 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 205 of 299 (595139)
12-06-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by frako
12-06-2010 6:34 AM


Re: Is it possible that......
Ok lets take a look at the evidence.
Evidence for Evolution - Homology
Evidence for Evolution - Embryology
Evidence for Evolution - Observed Natural Selection
Evidence for Evolution - The Fossil Record
Evidence for Evolution - Genetics
Evidence for a desighner:
Order and law - NO THEY CAN SPAWN ON THEIR OWN
Life - NO SO FAR THERE IS NO NEED TO INVOKE GOD IN THAT
The universe - NO WE HAVE THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN THE CURRENT STATUS AND SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP
I SEE NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD OR A DESIGHNER AND A SHIT LOAD OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
Hopefully Admin will provide a place for the posts I have mentioned to be discussed in detail. I truely dont mean to be rude, but it is becoming increasingly obvious you fellas dont even understand simple reasoning practices and are unable to understand the concepts of indirect and indirect implications and logical conclusions of simple arguments
Il say it one more time, then let admin decide a place or not.
In the absence of that which is absolutely provable, due to the fact that the direct evidence of those events no longer exist, one is forced to proceed with what can be logically deduced, against any physical realites.
Order and change follow the same rules and produce the same type of evidence, for thier conclusions
This simple point cannot be demonstrated to be false or refuted. Its as simple and hard as that
Dawn Bertot
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by frako, posted 12-06-2010 6:34 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Admin, posted 12-06-2010 8:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024