Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,048 Year: 5,305/9,624 Month: 330/323 Week: 174/160 Day: 10/38 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 29 of 182 (625642)
07-24-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
07-24-2011 1:54 AM


Re: Debating creationists
When there is a disagreement between (or among) creationists, how do they resolve that difference?
As usual C, you dont understand the difference between opinions and simple logical propositions. Opinions and differences matter little where logic validates a proposition.
Opinions and differences cant undo what is logically demonstratable and possible. This is why it is so very easy to debate you fellas in public or in writing. Its an open and shut case given the fact that you have no more information concerning the origin of reality than do I or anybody else
There is nothing to be resolved amoung Christians, since reality has done that for us
Pointing out that something MAY HAVE evolved, has little or nothing do do with the fact that it may have been created to do that in the first place.
Given that, how can you tell that Hovind is "more of a crackpot than most?" What standard can you use? It would seem to me, an outsider, that you have no empirical means nor agreed-upon methods to determine who is right and who is wrong.
Sure you do, its called, reality, logic and simple common sense. But then you and these other fellas refuse to debate it publically or allow it logically in science classrooms because your afraid of religion and the affects of it to begin with.
Thats the real point isnt it, you dont really have logical proposition ot stand on, so you blindside people with prejudice, imaginary inconsistencies, faulty reasoning and sloppy debating tactics
At bare minimum you refuse to deal with it as a simple logical proposition, because it makes your secular fundamentalist position fade as a vapor into realtive non-exsistence
And we cant have that can we, you have to have a platform somewhere dont you. So what you do is keep alive these supposed and imaginary differences between the two positions, dont you, when in fact the two positions have little or nothing to do with eachother
Perhaps this is another problem in debating creationists--they haven't worked out a uniform set of beliefs among themselves, and apparently have no method for doing so.
Your a liar (intellectually dishonest) and a coward and you know it, if you ever to choose to be intellectually honest
Yeah thats going to happen.
It doesnt make the Bible or anyother inspiration claimed source a liar due to the fact that the two positions are not in oposition to eachother to begin with
Secondly, If indeed inspiration and omnipotence are involved, there could be numerous reasons as to why our understanding is limited
At any rate one does not cancel the other out, as you fellas try and make it appear. But it helps to keep websites, books and misinformation alive, eh
Dawn Bertot
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 16 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2011 1:54 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2011 6:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 34 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-25-2011 1:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 31 of 182 (625647)
07-24-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coyote
07-24-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Debating creationists
If there is such a level of agreement, why are there some 40+ thousand different Christian denominations? (And some 4,300 world religions?)
And why is there no way to determine which belief is correct?
So if there is disagreement about moral issues, creationism and ID are false by default.? Im not sure i follow your logic here.
Tell you what, you guys fight it out among yourselves and when you get down to a single religion, then science can take on the winner. That's fair, eh?
Fight what out amoung ourselves? The Apostles had twelve different opinions all at once on many topics. Does that mean the truth in the form of Christ was not there or valid as truth
Theres already a winner, its called logic. Why would creationism and ID be false if evolutiomn "were" true?
As I suspected, you are unwilling to admit or acknowledge this imaginary wedge you shove inbetween science and religion, to keep up the prejudice you harbor against religion
Start with the basics C, admit that the two positions have nothing or litlle to do with eachother, then my son you will grow intellectually. Heck it could be your first baby step in rejecting prejudices and taking an honest intellectual approach to reasoning.
Test tubes are fun, but that not all thats involved in reality
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2011 6:29 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2011 8:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 33 of 182 (625661)
07-24-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2011 8:45 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Well, for starters you could try to convince Kent Hovind to adopt your particular brand of incoherent piffle, and then at least it would become on-topic for you to post about it on this thread.
Did I not respond to direct statements made by Coyote? He's the the one that made the assertions.
There is only an imaginary wedge that he and others have created, to fuel an argument that has no reason to exist in the first place
Does Kent have a reasoning problem as well, Im not familar with him. In fact, do either of you, you or him, understand what is involved in the proposition concerning creation, ID and evolution
Incoherent? I doubt it.
Piffle? perhaps you could demonstrate
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2011 8:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2011 2:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 39 of 182 (625836)
07-25-2011 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Butterflytyrant
07-25-2011 1:57 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Seeing as though there is nothing to be resolved among Christians you should be able to let us all know who is right among the following issues. I am sure you will be able to use your "reality, logic and simple common sense" and sort these issues out.
Age of the Earth -
Biblical literalists -
6000 years old
Roman Catholics -
4.5 Billion years old
Creation -
Mormons -
Is your indirect implication that you are correct in and about these matters. My point was simply that logic and reality has already decided the choices that i have, concerning creationism, evolution and ID. Opinions are realatively unimportant
I am glad you will be able to point out the correct interpretation of the Christian Faith. It should not take you too long to let all of the 2 billion or so Christians know which of them are in error and they will all be able to have 1 unified interpretation.
Coyotes statement of differences was concerning the different views of creationism amoung christians. My point was that those opinions and differences matter little when trying to decide between evolution and creationism, because they are not opposites
Secular fundamentalist atheists use this strawman argument and wedge to advance evolution and crush religion by contrasting the two items.
Theres no need for that and the only reason is to keep the ID principle, creationism and design out of the science classroom
If his implication is to imply (and it was) that because there are different views of creationism, creationism is invalid and christians are illogical and inconsistent, he is wrong and I am prepared to deal with that as well
His implication is dirty pool and sloppy debating tactics
Differences of opinion do not a contradiction make. Differences of opinion do not mean something is not logically demonstratable, atleast concerning creationism
One thing I am not sure of. As you do not believe that evolution is occuring, how are you going to convince the Roman Catholics?
If any amount of time passes evolution happens. My contacts are now dirty because they are no longer clean as a result of time and materials. Eventually they will fail completely
I only need to convince the individual person (catholic) of what is logically deonstratable and possible. If they do not accept the logic of reality, they are dishonest or not paying attention
Maybe you could make all of this tie into Hovind
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Butterflytyrant, posted 07-25-2011 1:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2011 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-26-2011 5:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 40 of 182 (625837)
07-25-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by hooah212002
07-25-2011 11:28 PM


Re: Back to the original topic...
I know it would be easier (and more fun) to tell tales of a magic wizard in the sky who makes it rain or created the earth
tell him what the logical and rational possibiltes are, you dont have to make stuff up at all.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2011 11:28 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 53 of 182 (625995)
07-26-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
07-26-2011 5:24 AM


Re: Debating creationists
Probably the best way for evolutionists to achieve victory
How would you acheive victory and what would it be about? How would you know when youve demonstrated creation/ID to be false? Do you understand that creationism is a logical proposition? do you understand that evolutions tenets, less its theoretical process, is a simple logical proposition
What victory?
they would have to remain silent and cede all their time to the lone evolutionist.
Ive watched Dr Warren rdeduce men to complete silence and close scheduled 3 night debates, the first night, because the evo or atheist didnt understand what was involved in these issues.
You could also see the light bulbs pop on over their heads through thier expressions
What part of creationism is it that you contend is false and how does the TOE interfere with the proposition of creationism or ID?
So again, what victory?
Dawn Bertot
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 43 by Percy, posted 07-26-2011 5:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Panda, posted 07-26-2011 5:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 55 by frako, posted 07-26-2011 5:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 07-27-2011 6:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 58 by Drosophilla, posted 07-29-2011 3:47 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 91 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 10:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 59 of 182 (626625)
07-30-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Drosophilla
07-29-2011 3:47 PM


Re: Debating creationists
You are aware that just because a question can be phrased in English that makes a grammatical sentence - doesn't mean it isn't nevertheless nonsensical?
Why is a toasting fork?
And I am sure you are aware of the fact (new comer) that there is difference between an assertion and an argument.
Your obligation in this instance would be to provide a statement or sentence that I have ever provided that is tantamount to what you have provided above
Knowing that you cannot do that, I will be happy to know that you are not only uninformed but a poor polemist. Fire away.
Creationist debaters are VERY skilled at this sort of game - the one thing they are far, far better than real scientists at is the art of sophistry
Happily logic and sound reasoning are what we employ, sophistry aside. Again another assertion by yourself. Do you have any examples or arguments to accompany that ignorant assertion?
The Gish gallop is just one form of their tactics. Arrange a debate, pour out dozens of piffling questions at high speed and make sure there isn't enough time left in the debate for the scientist to even make an inroad into it all. Questions asked nonsensically, or strawmen versions of the tenet under discussion so that the scientist would first have to completely correct the query before being able to answer it
Thus far your post and points are a snooze fest. Do you have any SPECIFC examples of where I have provided anything of that nature
Again Dor, theres assertion, then there is argument and evidence to support your assertions.
You do know the difference correct?
When you watch these 'poor scientists' scuppered it is a mixture of cleverly designed questions (clever as in artifice not academia) mixed with the guile of a stage artist....next to that an honest academician has little chance in a live debate.
Perhaps if you were better prepared and informed you could make a better appearance and presentation. Yeah, I understand its hard to think on your feet
Part of these poor scientist problem, is that they dont understand the issues to begin with
I explained to Chuck77 above, meaningful debates should be on a written format to remove the showmanship element and trickery. When this is done there is NEVER a bewildered scientist in a written debate - but plenty of crushed creationists!
In written ofrm or in person, it wouldnt help your case. Due to the fact that you are trying to wedge a principle into the discussion that is either non-existent or imaginary. Your trying to create a case or scenerio that is not a problem in the first place
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Drosophilla, posted 07-29-2011 3:47 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 8:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 107 by Drosophilla, posted 07-31-2011 7:14 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 182 (626631)
07-30-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by frako
07-26-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Well creationism and ID say that man and animals where created in their current form.
Evolution states that the current form of man and animals evolved from other forms of animals.
These statements are exclusive if evolution is true then creationism and ID cannot be true and if creationism or ID is true then evolution cannot be true.
side note:
This does not mean if evolution is wrong then creationism is true and if creationism is wrong then evolution is true.
Well as I see it, you have avoided my first point altogether and headed straight for what the scriptures has to say concerning the world.
Which means that my original argument about creation and ID having nothing to to do with religion or the Bible directly, substantiates the point that ID and creation are valid as logical points on thier own
Thus logically ID is not and cannot be demonstrated to be false simply because evolution might be true
Further creation on its own is more than valid, not only as a contemplation but as a valid explanation for the nature of things.
And finally, your inability to deal with my original argument demonstrates that the imaginary contrast between evo and creation do not exist. Unless your prepared to demonstrate otherwise. Can you.
These statements are exclusive if evolution is true then creationism and ID cannot be true and if creationism or ID is true then evolution cannot be true.
The second thing I noticed as a result of your Coyote's comments is, that because disagreements and misunderstandings exist between religious groups, they must not and cannot be correct in some areas.
Is your implication that all scientist agree on all points in science and specifically evolution and that if they dont agree they must be mistaken about evolution, or they shouldnt teach it because there is disagreement. Or that it should be considered false because there is disagreement?
You see the hole your diggin
Well creationism and ID say that man and animals where created in their current form.
As you well know the Bible is not meant to be a chronological illustration of what took place each and every moment in time. It is an expresssion of Gods power and demonstration o fhis majesty
This could of happened at anytime during the universes history. The six literal days could have been how it started, with great gaps in time concerning days and times. They do not have to be consectutive days, only that it was done within a days time period
The creative act is Im sure not a long drawn out process in and of itself (the exact moment) would have occured with in a 24 hour period, as we measure it. The big bang incident occured Im sure with in a small fixed period of time. Whereas its results or causes were slow and incidental.
The Bible often represents events as if they happened quickly or over slow periods of time, when in fact those instances could have been long or short periods of time
Our usual concept of Moses is that he left Egypt and returened a couple of weeks later, when in fact it was 40 years later or longer, if the 40 years is not used as a designation of time, even as something different than forty years
i.e Samson killed 1000 philistines, is probably meant to represent a large number which seemed like 1000.
The actual creation of man could have been after a long period of earths time, with many spcies and types including primates. Man could have been created within a day and representd as the seventh day., even being the seventh day as an expression of a creative act
Numbers as you know are used to represent many things in biblical usage. this interpretation does nothing to violate a 24 hour usage
My implication here is not that I believe in evolution, only that the earth may indeed be much older than we would contrive as presented by the Bibles expressions, because the Bible was never meant to be taken a chonological blow by blow
Trying to understand the Bible in that manner also does not make the Bible uninspired, untrue or unreliable. How many other ancient piecies of literature could we also examine in that time period with the same type and usage
No where are we specificaaly instructed or commanded to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. Nor should one assume the bible to be faulty or unreliable because of its usage of numbers as long or short fixed periods of time.
If this seems as rationalization one should consider that the same source (the Bible) also speaks of miracles, intervention, inspiration and omniscience by the same God that supposedly created said universe. many things are possible where an eternal God exists
Many things could have transpired by that same God that are not recorded. Luckly we are not required to know all such things and they do nothing to harm or represent the scriptures as unreliable, atleast in that context
And finally as I have demonstrated to many times to mention, creationism and ID should not be presented as true, because the Bible or evolution may or may not be true, but because logic and a logical examination of the natural world, clearly indicate such a conclusion
if we are going to be sepratist in the areas of scripture or science only the science of logic can settle the question as to what should or should not be taught
In a democracy and stage of separation of church and state, only logic can settle the question at hand
if anyone has a better approach please by all means demonstrate it to me
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.
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 55 by frako, posted 07-26-2011 5:36 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2011 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 63 of 182 (626636)
07-30-2011 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by dwise1
07-30-2011 5:35 PM


Re: Debating creationists
being able to baffle us with their bullshit.
Can you give an example that would support this statement
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 5:35 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 8:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 64 of 182 (626637)
07-30-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
07-30-2011 5:11 PM


Re: Debating creationists
You have misconstrued my point.
I might have misconstrued your buried point that could be indirectly implied and for that I apologize, but I doubt i misconstrued your visible meaning
My point was that science has means for determining which of two claims might be correct and which might be wrong. That means is empirical evidence.
Oh thats what you were getting at, its hard to see in all the anger and resentment
Unfortunately even the mighty science has no means of determing which claim is true or false concerning creation or soley natural causes, wouldnt you agree
Religion has no such means, and as a result you tend to have schisms instead of agreement.
Not about creation, or the creator, wouldnt you agree
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2011 5:11 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 6:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2011 6:44 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 66 of 182 (626641)
07-30-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
07-30-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Goooooo Enterprise
There is evidence of natural causes, but no evidence of special creation or a creator.
Exactly right, except for what appears to be very specific design. Now, can you give me the exact information and details in specification, without hesitation and or reservation that makes you know and be able to prove that it is by soley natural causes. How did it accomplish such a feat?
Remember, saying I dont care is not very scientific and does not follow the scientific methodolgy
do we have an explanation of those seeming invisible naturally occuring causes, can you explain it in detail with no fear of contradiction, how it works
If the Enterprise accidently and immediately transported a device not recognizable to myself or any human, would it be reasonable to assume it did not initiate from somewhere other than nowhere or itself. After examination of its SEEMING purpose and obvious design, would I be justified otherwise
Specific design is of the same category. there is no reason to assume that either its initiation or specifications, did not originate from an intelligent source or another physical property
it would be extremely silly to assume it came form nothing, even if there is debate about the definition of nothing
And finally until we can determine, which you cant, that it originated from nothing, if that is possible, until you can determin it, you are in the same boat of logic as the rest of us, wouldnt you agree
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 6:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 6:51 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 69 of 182 (626645)
07-30-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
07-30-2011 6:51 PM


Re: Reality intrudes
Too funny.
Until you provide evidence that there is a creator or some model that explains how that creator influences and directs evolution it is simply irrelevant.
And that is the thing you have never provided.
Until you do provide it you have nothing but bullshit and word salad.
It really is that simple.
Lest you and I get to far off into that again and we get a scathing from Percival, Let me once again point out that you have supplanted opinions and emotion for what should simply be a simple logical proposition.
As i demonstrated in my post and to which you gave no logical reply to a very logical argument, except to belittle and berate, you have no evidence concerning your own conclusions. If you did you would have presented it.
it does not matter what you think i need to provide in the form of evidence, when you yourself cannot provide evidence for you conclusion
Its really not that simple, because all you have provided is an explanation of what is visible and how it works, not its origination and creation properties.
If the visible properties in the form of the most minute particles of the universe, that cause the other existent properties, were constant, always there, and unchanging you might have a point.
it should be obvious they are not, even to our greatest measuring abilites
Without any real evidence for thier coming into existence, you have no real evidence as to thier source. Isnt that the point
So Jar in the absence of opinion and your feeelings, it will always be reduced to a logical proposition, in the absence of that which is presently knowable. Wouldnt you agree
neither you or I have a MODEL Jar where there is not enough evidence to form a model
If your implication is that you can provide a model for that which is not knowable, then please present it, Post hast
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 6:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 7:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 72 of 182 (626651)
07-30-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
07-30-2011 7:40 PM


Re: Reality intrudes
Bullshit and another example of you continuing to state falsehoods.
There is evidence of natural causes.
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
It really is that simple.
Your frustration and anger make it obvious you are unable or unwilling to respond to the argument I have present
BTW, calm down dude
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 7:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 07-30-2011 8:34 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 76 of 182 (626660)
07-30-2011 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dwise1
07-30-2011 8:54 PM


Re: Debating creationists
That is all that Coyote was saying, that all these groups, even though they all claim the same "inspired claimed source", all come up with very different conclusions.
So, how does this affect the proposition of creationism as a logical principle. Do you even understand what the argument is or is not
As usual, Dawn, you don't understand anything. You are listed as the most prolific poster in this topic ... and you have absolutely nothing to contribute.
Shouting and waving your arms in the air Dwise doesnt a good argument make. My suggestion is that you take a close look at my arguments, present them, then attempt to refute them
Nobody is paying attention to your tantrums, but we pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments
Really Dwise, is this how your superiors in the military taught you how to act, like a child
Youll impress me when you actually respond to the argument in my post
Your tantrums are not a good distraction. Give it a try Dwise, see what happens
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 8:54 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2011 9:18 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 78 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 9:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 9:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 79 of 182 (626668)
07-30-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by dwise1
07-30-2011 8:18 PM


Re: Debating creationists
{ABE: Dawn, you have seen for yourself how well your bullshit plays in written form. It doesn't play at all, does it? Why do you remain so deeply in denial? Because you believe that your faith depends completely on the lies that you keep spewing? Why are you unable to see what's so fundamentally wrong with such a sick and perverted theology?}
I would very much love to have a public debate with yourself, Dwise. My obligation in the debate would be staying awake during one of your speaches that make no attempt at arguments presented
dear God in heaven, I read through this vacuous speach and still no attempt at an argument
Do you even understand the principles of debate.
Get somebody in there who knows what he's doing and the creationist will have a very hard task before him.
never have I ever seen one seasoned debator of the Churches of Christ struggling or faltering in debates with Atheist, evos or anyother topic for that matter
One thing that has worked to our advantage is that the creationists' presentations are very well-polished. That means that they are running through a script; eg, Duane Gish, the universally acknowledged creationist "master debator" (you won't get it, but everyone else is fully free to play with the wording inside those quotation marks). This means that, while that well-oiled machine may serve the creationist well against uninitiated opponents, the more studious opponents will know exactly what the creationist will do, what false claims he will use, and what the appropriate responses are.
get out and about more and you find more than polished speeches
greatest advantage a creationist has is the element of surprise. If they are able to deceive their opponent into thinking that the issues of the "debate" are scientific, then they are free to chew him up piece-meal. The very last thing that creationists would want is to allow their opponent time to analyze their claims and to research them. An oral debate with time constraints ensures that that will never happen. A written debate opens the doors for actual examination of the evidence, which is the very last thing that any aware creationist would want.
A total misrepresentation if ever I saw one
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 8:18 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 07-30-2011 9:57 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