Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
566 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 563 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,902 Year: 21,938/19,786 Month: 501/1,834 Week: 1/500 Day: 1/96 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
jar
Member
Posts: 31760
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 151 of 182 (626918)
07-31-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Logic dermands
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.

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 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 9:52 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 10:17 PM jar has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 152 of 182 (626919)
07-31-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by dwise1
07-31-2011 8:23 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Well, actually Thomas B. Warren. He appears to be an actual scholar and the debates he participated in appeared to be actual debates on theological and philosphical issues.

So why did you mention him here?

Well thats the second insinuation that I was liar. I believe you called him an idiot initially, correct?

if you read the bio then you know that some, but not all of his debates involve ID and evolution. Dr Warren (one of my instructors) point is the same as the one I am making presently

Creationism is FIRST a philosophical or logical proposition, with nothing to do with religion or stories. It is a rational explanation referenced by natual realites, with no absolute proof as proof goes. this is true for both sides

secondly, there exists no sharp contrast between creation and evo, because they are seprate issues

We have seen far too well what you have to offer, so I cannot help but wonder why you would slander this person so grossly.

Yeah Ive heard this song several times now and I am still waiting for you to present a single item out of my post that indicates I am a liar or I have misrpresented something

Ill accept your apology if it was the booze influencing your anger. those are serious charges and I dont thinkl you realize the nature of false accusations.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2011 8:23 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 153 of 182 (626920)
07-31-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
07-31-2011 9:53 PM


Re: Logic dermands
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.

It really is that simple.

Amazing, how is it you get away with no actual debating, no attempts at rebuttal and you are not required to address any issues involved in anyones posts, responses, questions or challenges

You have no intention of debating. Maybe someone else in the form of a debator will pick up where you failed to start.

dawn bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 9:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 10:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 10:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31760
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 154 of 182 (626921)
07-31-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 10:17 PM


Re: Logic dermands
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.

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 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 10:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:37 PM jar has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 155 of 182 (626923)
07-31-2011 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
07-31-2011 10:18 PM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
There is evidence of natural causes.

Negative. You are confusing actions and occurences as a result of fictional, never witnessed phenomena. Pls tell us where your deity NATURE resides, what colors does he/she come in and who is the last person it spoke with?

quote:

Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.

There is heaps of evidences in wholly scientific reasoning and premises, and expressed by the world's greatest minds. There is nothingness in your claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 10:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 10:45 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 160 by hooah212002, posted 07-31-2011 11:04 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2050 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 156 of 182 (626924)
07-31-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 10:17 PM


Re: Logic dermands
Dawn Bertot writes:

Amazing, how is it you get away with no actual debating, no attempts at rebuttal and you are not required to address any issues involved in anyones posts, responses, questions or challenges

You have no intention of debating. Maybe someone else in the form of a debator will pick up where you failed to start.


We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 10:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 157 of 182 (626925)
07-31-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
Correct there is evidence of natural causes, but not SOLEY natural causes, to which you need to demonstrate that it is product of itself.


There is zero/zilch evidence of nature and/or natural causes. Nature is just a metaphor of the inexplicable, but it has become the leading deity of atheism.

Repro, for example, has no alignment with the nature deity; it is exclusively based on a program embedded in the seed transmitted by the host parents - exactly as stated in Genesis. Proof: let Mr/Mrs. Nature perform that feat w/o the seed factor - the only way atheism can sustain their claims.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 9:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by hooah212002, posted 07-31-2011 11:01 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31760
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 158 of 182 (626926)
07-31-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:37 PM


Re: Logic dermands
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 does not make them true.

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 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:37 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 11:13 PM jar has responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 159 of 182 (626927)
07-31-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Logic dermands
There is zero/zilch evidence of nature and/or natural causes. Nature is just a metaphor of the inexplicable, but it has become the leading deity of atheism.

Repro, for example, has no alignment with the nature deity; it is exclusively based on a program embedded in the seed transmitted by the host parents - exactly as stated in Genesis. Proof: let Mr/Mrs. Nature perform that feat w/o the seed factor - the only way atheism can sustain their claims.

In an effort to wrangle this topic back towards the OP, I will use IamJoseph as a prime example of how looney creationists are. Namely, this comment here:

There is zero/zilch evidence of nature and/or natural causes.

You heard it folks. Unless he is championing some form of solopsism, nature doesn't exist! There isn't anything natural. Everything we see is god's hand meddling in everything.

There is no feasible way to debate individuals who take this path.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:42 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 160 of 182 (626928)
07-31-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:37 PM


Re: Logic dermands
You are confusing actions and occurences as a result of fictional, never witnessed phenomena.

I request you to start a topic on your beef with nature and your take on it. You seem to have a rather unique as to what you think nature and natural is......

Honestly though, you wreak of poe and a troll.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:37 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 161 of 182 (626931)
07-31-2011 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
07-31-2011 10:45 PM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes....

Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence. Here's my say:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURE - ACTUALLY. IT IS THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC PREMISE EVER DEVISED - IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 07-31-2011 10:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 11:29 PM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 163 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-01-2011 4:56 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 170 by jar, posted 08-01-2011 8:10 AM IamJoseph has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2050 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 162 of 182 (626938)
07-31-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Logic dermands
IamJoseph writes:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURE - ACTUALLY. IT IS THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC PREMISE EVER DEVISED - IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY.


Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 11:13 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:00 AM Panda has responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2759 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 163 of 182 (626972)
08-01-2011 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Logic dermands
Hello IamJoseph,

I think this may be a language issue.

Pls tell us where your deity NATURE resides, what colors does he/she come in and who is the last person it spoke with?

There is zero/zilch evidence of nature and/or natural causes. Nature is just a metaphor of the inexplicable, but it has become the leading deity of atheism.

Repro, for example, has no alignment with the nature deity; it is exclusively based on a program embedded in the seed transmitted by the host parents - exactly as stated in Genesis. Proof: let Mr/Mrs. Nature perform that feat w/o the seed factor - the only way atheism can sustain their claims.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURE - ACTUALLY. IT IS THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC PREMISE EVER DEVISED - IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Thinking about the definition that I use for nature and I would suggest it is the same definition most people use, if you are using the same definition you could not possibly be making your statements and claim to be rational.

Can you tell us what you think nature mean please?

It is very possible that you are using the word in a totally different way that everyone else here is using it.

I dont know anyone who would be able to consider that nature is a deity or that there is no evidence of nature. Also, from the standard definition of nature as I understand it, being an athiest has no effect on it. It does not matter what faith you are, nature does not change.

So if you could define the word nature as you understand it, it may help us clear up this issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 11:13 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 5:43 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 164 of 182 (626975)
08-01-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Butterflytyrant
08-01-2011 4:56 AM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
Can you tell us what you think nature mean please?


Its described in vague, abstract terms, including state of being, mother nature, natural process, etc. But in the end it means nothingness. I don't think its a language barrier, as it is awkward to mention anything resembling the numerous competing and contradicting theologies, so it is more a generic, non-denominational method for the allocation of observations and what they may be caused by, without resorting to a creator. It is not a bad premise, as science and theology should never mix - but nature is nothing more than a metaphor or an imaginary bridge to leap over the godidit premise with a naturedidit.

The mere observation of an action or process cannot in any wise be deemed its causative factor or as evidence for it, and we have nothing else here other than the coinage of a word. Ecosystem falls under the same basis, namely this is a comprehensive construct of interlocking and inter-depending processes, and generically termed as ecosystem. There is no science behind nature, natural causes or ecosystem; there is only observation of a working process, also seen within the human body.

We do not call a car's working observances as a natural cause; so why should rainfall or sunlight be given this allocation: both display complexity. It begs the question if we cannot physically prove the universe maker in a lab vase, does the logical premise of it also become discardable? I say the sound premise must apply and transcend what we cannot capture, especially so when we cannot physically capture Mr/Mrs. Nature!

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-01-2011 4:56 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-01-2011 9:26 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 165 of 182 (626976)
08-01-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Panda
07-31-2011 11:29 PM


Re: Logic dermands
quote:
Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

I am not at all into any theology; I mention sections of Genesis only in an emperical mode. But I did more than just saying it - that is your position which I merely tried to point out. The scientific cause & effect premise is with Creationism; what have you got - name a scientific premise, as cause and effect cannot be allocated to a self propagating stream of nothingness as its alternative.

Proof and dis-proof cannt apply to any of those two premises and is thus neutralized. We are left with only one alternative from a science POV: a complexity is the result of a source of wisdom, intentional and purposeful - else it is not borne of wisdom or intelligence; this is the reason I find Genesis more plausable; namely the cause and effect for a complexity is more aligned with a source of transcendent wisdom, than random selection. One of those premises is not scientific, yet widely accepted as such. Someone is telling fibs here, and passing it off as science! But scence itself is a post-universe phenomenon which never existed at one time: how could it when there was nothing around to apply science to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 11:29 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Panda, posted 08-01-2011 6:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019