To the reader: Let me apologize for the utterly disgusting verbiage in the following. just keep this in mind as you read. There is an axiom among debaters that says, “When your opponent gets ugly and starts making personal attacks and aspersions, you know you have won!” That is clearly evident in the presentation to follow.
Now, in addition to that, here are some facts that you need to know:
It has been discovered, and admitted by Mr. “Bale”, that his name is not actually Sergius Bale.
The truth is that the true identity of the one calling himself Sergius Bale is none other than Lance Conley.
What that means is that Bale / Conley, lied about his true identity.
He lied, repeatedly, not only about his true name, but when he constantly claimed to have a PHd.
He lied, repeatedly, when he claimed to be a professor of a university in Australia.
Some months ago, I asked him pointedly if his name and identity as Sergiius Bale, was true, and he affirmed that it was. Now, the truth comes out that he lied from the very beginning
Now, Conley is known to be a deeply mentally disturbed young man, with anger issues and clearly, whose poisonous tongue manifests itself in vicious attacks against anyone that differs with him. That is exhibited in his final “affirmative.”
What is truly amazing and so sad is that when he was exposed on the FB page, Full Preterism: A Thing of the Past, (where he admitted to his true identity), he said that his constant lying did not hurt anyone. He exhibited no remorse, no repentance, and no apology for his long time lying. Not only that, to compound the tragedy and flagrancy of his personal dishonesty, it has been revealed that many of the anti-preterists on that forum knew, for a good long while, of his dishonesty, and not one of them spoke up and exposed his lying and vicious attacks. That speaks volumes about the moral character– or lack thereof, of the owner of that site who allowed it to carry on, and the anti-preterist that make it a den of corruption.
So, again, keep this in mind when you read the post below. Just keep in mind that the author is an admitted liar. (He claims that his lies do not detract from the content of his post. There is a small degree of validity to that, but, nonetheless, it is important to know that the author is an admitted liar and guilty of egregious sin before God).
I am more than happy to address the content of his posts, as well as his sin – and my final negative will address these issues.
Don K. Preston
Sergius Bale / Lance Conley’s Final Affirmative
For this 3rd Affirmative, I am just going to give a summary of the debate and discuss the 1st and 2nd Negative Preston gave in response since Preston has decided to engage in nothing more than ad hominem and other fallacies and downright slander against me in his second negative… I have no more reason to take this debate seriously since Preston cannot find it within himself to be honorable and engage in proper decorum with a formal written debate.
Summary of the Debate So Far
In summary, Mr. Preston and I began this debate with the propositions that Preston would definitively prove the Revelation was written in an early date (pre-70 CE) and I would argue that though not definitive (due to intellectual honesty in academia/scholarship) the Revelation was likely written after 70 CE.
We began this debate with a Q&A where I answered all questions that Preston asked me to give. When he was to answer the questions I raised, he did not answer questions 1 nor 5 which one can read when they read the Q&A section of the debate.
In Preston’s First, Second, and Third Affirmative, Preston did a lot of interpreting “the Bible” but nowhere unfortunately for him, did he manage at any point to definitively prove that the Revelation was written before 70 CE. To summarize this part of the debate, Mr. Preston essentially was claiming as his defense: “Revelation was written before 70 CE because this is my interpretation of Revelation”; in other words, this is true because I said and declared it is so. This, of course, is not helpful or useful by any standard of academia nor scholarship and would not pass by any standard. At no point did he confirm or give any definitive proof to defend his claim. In other words, Preston has to, without any doubt, establish as an established fact that definitively and conclusively the Revelation was written before 70 CE. Obviously, he does not and any reader of these debates can see for themselves that he has not done so.
In his first affirmative, he continuously attempted to change what the debate is about. It is not about how one interprets the religious text of Revelation nor the Bible but is instead about when this text, itself, was written. This is clear from the premise and the objectives we both agreed to in the debate propositions that the reader can easily read. Instead of sticking to the debate as planned, Preston continuously employed fallacy after fallacy with constant misrepresentations, and unfortunately his entire first affirmative was filled with ad hominem arguments as well.
In his second affirmative, after I gave my negative as prescribed for the debate, this unscholarly and unprofessional behavior just continued unfortunately where he gave a lot of “Scripture” and his interpretation of these scriptures but not a single time was he able to give anything that definitively proves Revelation was written before 70 CE, which is what his objective was to be for this debate. As anyone who reads it can see, he misrepresents my positions and decides to break the rules countless times bringing up comments on Facebook with other individuals. That would not hold water in any formal debate and would he have presented “Sergius Bale said this on Facebook” in the middle of a debate in a university setting he would not be asked back again due to the lack of professionalism and inability to stick to debate standards and rules. Quite frankly, as a professional and someone who claims he is a “master debater” one would think this man would figure it out at some point how to act like a professional or at least learn to be respectful but this does not happen at all and I again note countless times in this 2nd Affirmative where Preston gives fallacy after fallacy, misrepresentations and adds nothing of substance in this debate.
In his final and 3rd affirmative, it just continues to get more pathetic and futile to hope that Mr. Preston could ever hope or believe him to be professional since he starts to openly concoct disturbing lies about me going so far as to also claim that I ignore his second affirmative and then continues on the same path employing fallacy after fallacy with multiple ad hominem statements calling me unscholarly, arrogant, and declaring I break the rules of the debate when, unfortunately, as the reader can easily tell, Preston is the one who has in fact broken the rules at almost every turn from the start, even at the Q&A section. Projection is a bit of an understatement with Preston. At one point, he even tries to pull a gish gallop fallacy and it was safe to say that Brandolini’s Law applied here. He continued to mention conversations on Facebook and give even more ad hominem arguments. I could go on with this but you get the gist. At the end of the day, Mr. Preston completely failed to establish any credibility for his position and lost his own personal credibility by engaging in meaningless rhetoric and constant ad hominem, and ungodly and unscholarly behavior that is beneath all people.
Next up, for my part of the debate where I give my affirmations, my objective was to affirm that while not definitive, the book of Revelation was likely written in the reign of Domitian (90s CE) after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and explain why. Knowing that this was the agreed-upon objective, Preston decides in his first negative to berate me for giving no definitive statement or setting something as an established fact. Obvious to any reader who has read what my objective is to be in this debate and read my first affirmative, they will find that, yes, obviously none of what I offer here makes it 100%, without a doubt, definitive or conclusive that the Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian. One cannot make that claim definitively for either the early or the late date as we do not possess any manuscript or anything definitive from the archeology and history books. In other words, we cannot claim something is an established fact when we do not possess definitive evidence to prove the claim to be an established fact. Preston cannot prove an early date and has not done so in his three affirmatives and while I can give pieces of evidence that point to the potential for Revelation to be more likely written in a later date, I cannot and will not make some definitive statement when it cannot be established as a fact since that would be intellectually dishonest, be pseudo-scholarship, be pseudo-academia, and only one with a lack of integrity would claim such a thing in that matter. Nowhere in the first negative of Preston did he give any argument addressing the arguments I give.
Responding to Preston’s Second Negative
In the second affirmative, Preston attempts to claim I have not done any exegesis of a single bible text. Why would this matter? The debate as I have noted repeatedly is not over Preston’s interpretation or my interpretation of “the Bible” nor the Revelation itself being valid, Holy Spirit inspired, accurate or not. It is over WHEN THE REVELATION WAS WRITTEN. Nothing more and nothing less. He brings up Facebook posts again proving complete desperation on his part and an inability to stick with the debate at hand. It also shows an entire and complete lack of professionalism that has been evident throughout this entire debate. Preston denies it but at the end of the day, the reader can see it for themselves in the writing. Don Preston at the end of the day knows he has completely violated the very rules of the debate that HE DEMANDED be in this debate. It is irrelevant what is posted on Facebook to this debate but he continues to do so. I cite where he breaks many rules aplenty but Preston lies to the reader claiming I don’t. I suppose he presumes they are not going to read the propositions of the debate and will just take his word for everything.
Preston writes that he argued Revelation is a “Jewish book, about the imminent fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel”. He then makes some statement that Revelation 6 is “no pagan altar”… The reader can easily note I made no such statement that this was a pagan altar. He claims I ignore his citation of scholarship but the reader can easily see I did no such thing. Lying about the other debater is intellectually dishonest. Preston should gain some integrity as this debate ends for his own sake. I did not ridicule Preston as he claims. I did note that he does not cite any scholarship. When he does cite scholarship I also note that Preston gives us nothing from these scholars to prove his claims about the dating of Revelation and since Preston is supposed to prove DEFINITIVELY that the Revelation was written before 70 CE, he has obviously failed to do so. I have nothing to say other than Preston is just genuinely dishonest claiming I ignore his claims and citations.
Preston commits an ad hominem and a no true Scotsman fallacy by claiming “His (I, Sergius Bale) rejection of this foundational Biblical truth reveals how totally out of touch with the Biblical narrative he truly is”… because I do claim that the Revelation is not Jewish writing. It is, in fact, the work of St. John who is a follower of Christ, and therefore John the writer of Revelation is a Christian. Does Don want to reject one of the few things about Revelation that is an established fact?
Preston then claims wildly that “All the first Christians were Jews”… completely dismissing the fact that these seven cities in Asia Minor would have Jew but be mostly Gentile cities. He also has a problem here declaring the Revelation is about the promises of the Old Covenant coming to fulfillment. Most biblical scholars apart from dispensationalists would claim otherwise and in fact state that the Old Covenant was fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Christ but I digress. None of this establishes anything about the date of Revelation.
Preston tries and fails to set up a false dichotomy about Isaiah 65-66 and 2 Peter 3… claiming I am “defeated” somehow by the Q&A? This is all illogical and fabrication but at the end of the day, even if Preston could find my interpretation of Scriptures and my personal beliefs and tear them all apart, he would still have given absolutely nothing to support his claim that Revelation was written before 70 CE as he can give nothing definitive as he claims. Isaiah 65-66 and 2 Peter 3 I would also note do not give us any indication of the dating of Revelation inside of them.
Preston gives some interpretation of Isaiah 63 and 65-66 and none of this gives us the date of Revelation. Preston makes some interpretations about Acts 24, 26; Isaiah 25-27, 65-66; Daniel 12; Ezekiel 37, the entire book of Zechariah… and nowhere, not a single place, does any of the texts he gives to us prove a definitive date of Revelation. Instead of being a grown-up and a professional and trying to act scholarly, Don instead continues on with ad hominem fallacies claiming that I accuse John of teaching a different gospel, then claims that I teach another Gospel… and then claims I make a mockery of language by not agreeing with Preston’s interpretations of scripture… This is again unprofessional and Preston just continues to dig himself a hole where he cannot seem to quit with unprofessional behavior. It is also laughable that someone who declares himself a master debater would stoop to this level of discourse in what was supposed to be a written formal debate. What should have been two professionals having intellectual discourse has instead become one side, Preston’s making absurd claims, lies about his opponent, misrepresentations about his opponent, and just overall a man who has lost the debate by engaging in nothing more than what can be described as absolute intellectual dishonesty and a lack of integrity with his character. Christians should not engage in the type of disgusting and despicable behavior that Don Preston has engaged in here and on a personal note: I encourage the reader to not follow in this man’s footsteps with the way he has given discourse and debate here.
Preston then continues in what apparently will just be an entire “negative” where he gives nothing but ad hominem claims such as that I am ignorant or arrogant for saying that Revelation 6 does not cite Isaiah 2-4. In fact, Revelation 6 does not cite Isaiah 2-4 at all. Don does in fact lie to the reader by claiming that it does cite Isaiah 2-4. Preston brings out some commentary by David Aune who says that Revelation 6 alludes to Isaiah 2… Aune in fact does not say Revelation 6 cites Isaiah 2-4. Aune says he sees an allusion there and makes an assertion that there is an allusion there. Nowhere does Aune claim Revelation quotes nor cites directly Isaiah 2… So despite Preston’s attempts to disprove his lie here, he has come up short as usual and the charge and accusation I made stands that Preston did in fact lie and try to intentionally mislead his audience.
Preston lies again to the reader claiming that 2 Thess. 1 quotes – verbatim – from Isaiah 2:19… The fact is that this does not happen in 2 Thessalonians 1 at all. Don is factually in error. Preston then decides to slander me yet again with an ad hominem claiming that “According to Bale, John was ignoring Jesus and Paul’s citation and application of Isaiah”… Nowhere did I make any claim like this first. Secondly, Paul does not cite Isaiah 2 in 2 Thess. 1… I can only conclude Preston is being intellectually dishonest here and trying to mislead his audience or that he is utterly confused or has resorted in complete and total desperation to just saying whatever he wants and hoping no one fact checks him. I believe it is the latter unfortunately as he has shown no ability whatsoever to conduct himself properly in this debate since the very start as I have noted so why would Preston bother at the end to conduct himself properly?
Preston goes on a whole rant about Domitian and persecution. Fact is, I just have to provide sources that show there was potentially persecution, which I do. Nothing has to be definitive here. Preston knows this. Preston then tries to undermine Eusebius, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus who all agree that Domitian did persecute the Church at one point and exile John to Patmos. I don’t think much more needs to be said. It does not have to be widespread persecution. The fact is that there is not a single source that gives us an early date for the Revelation while it is unanimous from Church history that there is a later date seen in mind by virtually all writers and historians even until the 6th and 7th Centuries respectively where we find a few sources that point to considering Nero in mind like the “616” manuscript we have discussed in my first affirmative for example. Though we must, due to intellectual honesty and integrity to academia and scholarship, say none of this is definitive for the latter date being the date it was written, we still have plenty of evidence to support this to be the case as I have shown while Don has nothing definitive and only has what amounts to a “because I said so” argument and a flurry of ad hominem statements that wreck any credibility he might have had in this debate.
I will also note this. Preston claims Jesus was not crucified by or in Rome but in fact, Jerusalem and the Judean province were part of Rome so yes, Jesus was technically very much crucified in Rome and a Roman city and a Roman province, but I digress. Nothing here anyway determines the date of Revelation as Preston continues to blabber on and on with his pointless interpretation of Scripture that does not give us any definitive date at all. It is not definitive just because Don Preston wants it to be so and because he makes up some interpretation that he wants all people to believe to be without error.
Preston tries to berate me for giving a 10th Century source about St. Antipas he claims is highly questionable but yet, I have given an actual source for my affirmation while Preston, who claimed he would give something definitive throughout this entire debate could not do so. Preston claims that there is “Catholic tradition that says Antipas was slain by Nero” and then gives a video of himself which can only be described as a non-answer and an incoherent rambling for 16 minutes where he proves nothing and wastes everyone’s time here. He does not give a single mention of this supposed “Catholic tradition” in this video that is supposed to share the source. He then gives a claim about Cornelius A Lapide being the only commentary according to DeMar, Gumerlock, and Schaff to talk about the Forum of the Ox. Concerning these three, the Forum of the Ox was used as punishment for a long time. The statue we know was brought to Constantinople from Pergamum in Asia Minor and according to the Patrologia Latina, it was used to persecute Christians by Julian the Apostate (361-363 CE) and notably, Emperor Heraclius (610-641) had it melted and used it before that to have Emperor Phocas’ head and body burned down in 610 CE, which they note in Byzantine history books that this is believed to be the same bull that St. Antipas was martyred in. While we cannot definitively prove that this bull is or was the same bull (and it very well may not be so) there is something to be said there that this is talked about in historical data. We don’t have omniscience so DeMar, Gumerlock, and Schaff may not know of this source which is fine. Either way, this is not definitive but as far as I can tell these people are mistaken on some level about the origin of the martyrdom story evidence but even if this could be argued against or shown to be falsified, it still does not matter since there are proofs given whereas in this debate Preston has given absolutely nothing to make his claims 100% conclusive.
Preston claims that Robinson proves that there was a distinction made between the Jews and Christians and claims this was an established certainty. Whether that is the case or not, none of this makes it definitive about the date of Revelation. Robinson tries to make a case for the dating but he even admits that he has nothing that gives 100% definitive and conclusive evidence to make it an established fact. Preston tries and fails to make some “refutation” about Jude’s grandchildren and falls flat. Domitian could have been prone to exile people and not have them killed. A Roman Emperor could do whatever he wanted for any reason. He could have had Jude’s grandchildren killed but as the historians state, Domitian chose not to do so, and instead the biggest thing the historians’ state is that he exiled John to Patmos, a clear statement made by Eusebius and Hegesippus and backed by Irenaeus. This could very well be accurate. When Domitian exiled John to Patmos, John wrote the Revelation and when Nerva became emperor, John would have been released, and then as the historians state, he could have very well died in the reign of Trajan as is stated. Polycrates certainly believes he died in the reign of Trajan and this is confirmed by other patristics. Preston just presumes in a typical asinine fashion that his interpretation of Revelation has to be the correct one and everyone else’s interpretation is damned and false and stupid. John nor any historian nor patristic ever once claim the Revelation was fulfilled in 70 CE. We can conclude as well easily that the Church does not believe the Revelation is fulfilled. What the historians show us is that the Revelation was seen to be written in Domitian’s reign according to the historians and their sources. We have our sourcing from St. Hegesippus writing from 110-180 CE that John died in the reign of Trajan and wrote the Revelation after 70 CE. Compare this to Mr. Preston who has nothing but his interpretation of scripture that is attested to be false (him being a full preterist) by literally everyone in scholarship and academia and in the realm of atheism, agnosticism, history, along with biblical scholarship in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox circles all being in agreement when full preterism is brought up as a topic that it has no legitimacy at all.
Preston asks why I spend time talking about the martyrdom of Symeon, son of Clopas. Did Preston just not read the 2nd Affirmative? I make quite clear why I mention this. In Chapter 32-33, Eusebius continues confirming historical facts about the period that the descendants of Jude, John, and Symeon lived under during the reign of Domitian, which continued to happen even to the reign of Trajan and onward. Preston, therefore, lies when he claims this information is unimportant. This information collaborates the data I give in the second affirmative before that.
Preston tries to use some scholar named Moss and claims because she doesn’t mention Domitian that I must therefore be false. If we can trust Preston read Moss correctly, then apparently he believes as she apparently does that Eusebius fabricated everything he said for political purposes. This must also apparently mean that Hegesippus fabricated everything too as did Irenaeus and Polycrates who confirms John died in the reign of Trajan and knew Polycarp and Irenaeus, two people who knew John for some time. Apparently, the only one anyone can trust is Preston and his infallible interpretation of scripture (Note to the reader: this is sarcasm as Don is definitively not infallible, not even close).
Preston claims I ignore Apollonius of Tyana saying Nero was called a tyrant… I did not mention him but that does not mean I ignored him. Him not calling Domitian a tyrant doesn’t mean anything except that this one person didn’t call Domitian a tyrant. There are plenty of sources in history that call Domitian a tyrant as well just as there are claims that Nero is a tyrant. If this is supposed to be an attempt at a “got you” moment, Preston has absolutely failed to do so.
Preston berates me over my usage of Clement of Alexandria and tries to use the Stromata to claim that inspiration ended in the days of Nero. The patristics do not teach cessation. Preston is a cessationist but his belief is not adhered to by the patristics nor any in the Early Church. His belief system is innovation and nothing more than an ahistorical belief just like his full preterism, put up by Restoration types in the Church of Christ denomination that think everyone was wrong until he, Preston showed up to grace us with his presence. There is no reason to take his claims here seriously since Clement does not believe in the cessation of God inspiring people. This is nothing more than Preston misinterpreting the texts of the patristic writers to try to back his fallacious claims.
Preston lies and claims I believe Peter did not write 1 Peter. I will say there are good arguments to be made that it is a posthumous work done at the hand of someone like St. Stephanus perhaps who would have been an amanuensis for Peter but an amanuensis is still writing for the writer and will write as the writer would have wished. Preston’s lack of integrity is noted for lying about me here but this has been how this entire debate has pretty well gone. Preston then lies again and claims that I say Revelation may have been fabricated. I do not actually make this claim and it just shows his continuous lack of integrity and character on Preston’s part to be unprofessional in this manner and lie in the middle of a formal written debate. I have nothing more to give here. Preston claims I will give nothing but insults and silence but in fact, he has done nothing but make insults about me and not answer in the proper scholarly matter. His lies are quite disgusting and his lack of integrity is quite insulting. This is not Christian behavior.
Tacitus does not refute me as Preston claims. Nero does exile some people and I never claimed otherwise. I do claim that Nero preferred to execute more than he exiled but Preston maliciously lies here again by misrepresenting my position showing his disgusting behavior and disregard for honesty and integrity. This is again non-Christian behavior.
I give The Acts of John as evidence and Preston tries to disregard it by claiming it is a heretical work according to the Council of Nicaea (a Council he cares nothing about and doesn’t agree with, to begin with). It does not matter if this work is considered heresy. It is a 2nd Century work and I am not arguing over inspiration. I just note that it references John’s exile by Domitian and I list it because it is history. It doesn’t matter if Don thinks the text is goofy for having John pray for bedbugs to leave or thinks it is strange. His personal opinion is irrelevant. Most people think that Don Preston’s belief that Jesus came back in 70 CE is ridiculous and all of Christendom declares full preterism a heresy since we’ve decided to disregard historical documents just because someone like Preston thinks something it says is goofy. Preston’s argument here is entirely irrelevant.
Preston’s claims about Irenaeus are disputed in Orthodox circles. John Behr does not claim anything Preston claims in any definitive way. Behr makes arguments in a scholarly fashion, unlike Don Preston. Mr. Preston should not concoct lies about people. Dean Furlong well can claim whatever he likes but he does not have anyway – as no one does – to prove definitively that the Revelation was written in the reign of Nero or Domitian. No one does and anyone who claims they do is not being truthful. I would not trust Dean Furlong’s “scholarship” if he claims it is an established fact that Revelation was written before 70 CE as it is not. It is, as of now, an established fact that we do not have the exact date of Revelation when it was written.
He claims that we should find “direct, definitive testimony” to Domitian worship… I have given sources for the imperial worship already. Domitian had a neokorate dedicated to the worship of himself along with his brother Titus and father Vespasian. I have given more than enough proof for this. We have the historical evidence for this and Preston’s claim that there is no biblical record of such persecution is not factual. If Revelation was written after 70 CE then it is in fact a “biblical record”. We can’t be definitive about that but if it is, then it is in fact one. We have historians all in agreement about this as I have noted. To suggest there is no evidence at all like Preston does is simply intellectually dishonest.
Preston lies yet again claiming I want to convince the reader that he is a false teacher for taking the early dating of Revelation. I have claimed no such thing in this debate. This is not Christian behavior to make up lies about me and Preston quite simply needs to quit being a liar. If he wants to be a Christian since he is not being one by being a bold-faced liar and slandering me with false claims he can do so and be one by repenting of his slander and lies. Preston shows no integrity whatsoever here.
I will say this clearly to the reader: I do not believe early date advocates are liars or false teachers. Early date believers are not heretics. Early date believers can be and are Christians just as much as of late date believers are.
Since Preston has decided to be personal though, I do in fact believe he is a false teacher and a heretic but it is not for believing in the early date of Revelation. I think he is a false teacher and a heretic and not a Christian because of multiple reasons. He denies Christ is fully God and fully human. He believes Christ’s incarnation burned up in the Ascension. He endorses teachers like William Bell, who teaches young men to be open polygamist marriages. Preston denies and intentionally misinterprets the resurrection of the dead. Most importantly, Preston exhibits ungodly behavior which is evidenced all throughout this debate since he is clearly and openly willing to lie about others and misrepresent others. No Christian should have to lie and show the complete lack of character and the lack of integrity like Mr. Preston has shown here throughout this entire debate. With that, I have given more than enough evidence throughout my negatives and affirmatives while Don Preston has done nothing to prove his affirmative. Throughout this debate Preston was to prove definitively that Revelation was written before 70 CE and there was not a single point through this debate where he managed to do so, failing on every level to do so. My affirmative and objective were to show that while not definitive, there is plenty of evidence to support a late date for Revelation being the case. I have obviously done so. Preston has not. Thus, Preston loses the debate and only continues to fall even further with his sad and pathetic exhibition of ungodly and antichrist behavior throughout this debate showing he has no problem with lying and misrepresenting others, shows he has a complete lack of respect, decorum, and a complete lack of integrity and has unfortunately shown he cannot be a professional nor a scholar in any sense of the word for this debate at all.
To conclude this, Don Preston is no expert debater. It is clear from this debate that he has obviously lost the ability to tell the truth and instead can only persist in lie after lie. It is clear he has not proven his affirmative as he was assigned to do in this debate. He has not proven definitively that Revelation was written in 70 CE and has thus lost the debate as, ultimately, whether you agree or disagree with the late date of Revelation, I did prove my point by sticking to my objective in the debate and proving my objective, whereas Preston failed to do so. Additionally, it is abundantly clear that since he could not do so and prove his position he resorted to fallacy upon fallacy throughout this entire debate and will likely do so in his final negative as well. He could do nothing more than constant ad hominem statements. It is clear he could not be professional, lacks intellectual honesty, lacks proper Christian decorum, and shows a complete and utter lack of integrity when it comes to debate. I cannot stress enough the lack of integrity he has shown here for it is utterly detestable behavior. This man is no scholar ladies and gentlemen. This man can not claim the title of Christian as Christians do not have to resort to constantly lying about their opposition which Preston does here. I would ask the reader to pray for his repentance and hope that Mr. Preston gets a grip on reality and truth and stops resorting to his most ungodly and antichristian behavior.
Source: Don K. Preston