[Southack]

"Your posts clearly presupposes that there is a god..."

If my posts lead you to that conclusion, then fine, but they don't "presuppose" that conclusion per se (although from my perspective the preponderance of DNA programming evidence seems to point that way).

I see that you've backed away from your claim that I was saying that god's existence was proven.

That's progress, even for you. Perhaps one day you'll even be able to discern the difference between "preponderance of evidence" from that of "proven". Surely that point of distinction ins't too subtle, even for you.

[Sentis]

I didn't back away from any point, I proved that you twisted my words and I did not say what you have intimated I said. You admit as much "If my posts lead you to that conclusion, then fine, but they don't "presuppose" that conclusion per se (although from my perspective the preponderance of DNA programming evidence seems to point that way)." In fact post #80 proved my point entirely.


You however have backed away from anything regarding a defense of your original presuppositions. Maybe you should get back to those rather than play word games about what was said or wasn't said.


"preponderance of evidence" from that of "proven". I quite well understand those. Maybe one day you will learn not to get off the topic and not to try to play at being a "fair witness" rather than a pro Creationist advocate.