Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science of Creation
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 1 of 4 (782868)
04-29-2016 5:41 PM


Since it has been alledged repeatedly that so called creationist that have visited this site have left because they cannot support thier case and that it is a dead indefensible issue, I purpose to demonstrate that neither of these issues is valid or warranted
The reasons as will be demonstrated, have little to do with social reasons or pressure and a failure on our part but more to do with the nature of reason and argumentation and where it leads
Simply put, while Evos claim they have dismantled creationism and design and it is not necessary to discuss it, neither the physical evidence or sound reason support thier assertion, as usual.
Typically, when it comes to creation and design concepts,Secular fundamentalist humanists, SFH, misuse the simple principles of science or they disregard basic principles they use freely when it comes to others position
But since it is incumbent on me to defend creation as science I freely accept that challenge, which we are reminded constantly cannot be done by our skeptical friends
Dawn Bertot

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2016 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 3 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2016 8:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 2 of 4 (782885)
04-30-2016 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2016 5:41 PM


Further it was alledged that I had misrepresented and I was not staying on Topic in Jars thread titled Why we should not expect many if any Creationist.
Yet the opening post has little or nothing to do with creationists lack of participation due to social media reasons or anything of that nature.
It was instead a direct attack on the false notion that Creationism was unsupportable and therefore had failed as a tenable idea
If anyone thinks I am incorrect in my estimation, Please go back and read Jars Opening Post in that thread.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2016 5:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


Message 3 of 4 (782886)
04-30-2016 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
04-29-2016 5:41 PM


X
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2016 5:41 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-30-2016 9:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 4 (782893)
04-30-2016 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2016 8:30 AM


Hi Dawn,
Though I'm replying to the last one, this reply addresses all three of your posts.
I can find no creation/evolution topic here, but you do seem to have a strong interest in the Why we should not expect many if any Creationists thread. I suggest you return to that thread, just please stay on topic. If you read through that thread you'll see that many did not agree with Jar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2016 8:30 AM 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