1 November 13 2009 at 03:51:06
Name: trebob
Comments: To our anonymous commenter on November 13 2009 at 03:14:26, and Heyo:

Thank you for taking the time to comment. Unfortunately most people who make comments similar to yours often do not show the slightest understanding of what evolutionary theory states or how science works. Most scientists spend years studying to obtain a degree in one discipline so it is not unfair or unreasonable for us to ask you to spend some of your time (possibly days, weeks, or even months) studying what the concepts you might object to actually state. By reviewing the materials at the upcoming link and then answering some questions about them we can be sure you actually have some understanding of the scientific concepts discussed there and will be able to participate in a logical, rational, and informed discussion on them. If you are unwilling to take the time to do this it will be taken as an admission that you do not care whether the statements you make are accurate in which case there is no point in further discussion.

You must post your answers as a reply to the blog entry at the upcoming link using the same name you used here and you must answer them in the same comment entry (don't post a separate comment to answer each single one).

http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html

2 November 13 2009 at 03:18:09
Name: Heyo
Comments: For John
The basis of my argument lies on the fact that evolution cannot be proven, and neither can creationism. But knowing this you must know where the source is based. Evolution is a belief as is creationism, but creationism unlike that of evolution is based on faith in God as the designer. Evolution lacks evidence just as much as creationism.

3 November 13 2009 at 03:14:26
Name:
Comments: What if with the help of God all things are possible, including population of the earth. I mean is it not possible for God to help Noah in this terrific feat. As far as the starlight, what if God had created the stars in the position they were. Is that not possible. As a Christian I believe in five points.
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
4. God is all knowing
5. Evil exists

The Bible states that it is the word of God and that no piece is to be removed or added. Genesis is an important part the Bible. By your theory we should completely disregard it as fairy tale, when a direct commandment of God is that the Bible is to be kept whole, unbroken, and unquestionable truth.

Here's my next question:
Is it really dangerous to believe the Bible to be literally true?

4 November 13 2009 at 02:53:35
Name: 4truth
Comments: "Firstly, it's great to have you on board Heyo. It's about time that David, Jim and Tre (I believe called Richard) are put in their place. I have been struggling for weeks to get some useful information from these guys regarding their theory (they call it a scientific-theory implying it's a FACT). It appears that they are not interested in science but just insults."

Now THAT is just comedy gold right there. Harris and Heyo who have no evidence and dam well know it accuse everyone else of presenting none, while they themselves present none and ignore what is presented to them all the while having all of their tired old creationist BS shot down one piece after the other. It's to bad the 2009 golden crocoduck has already been given out. Oh well. There is always 2010.

5 November 12 2009 at 23:51:12
Name: John H
Comments: Firstly, it's great to have you on board Heyo. It's about time that David, Jim and Tre (I believe called Richard) are put in their place.

I have been struggling for weeks to get some useful information from these guys regarding their theory (they call it a scientific-theory implying it's a FACT). It appears that they are not interested in science but just insults. I think I now know why; it's because they have no substance behind their belief (yes belief - not science) and feel that by giving verbal abuse they will distract visitors from insisting for evidence.

Trebob (Richard), I read your post http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/reading-posts-about-astronomy-made-by.html and found it interesting. You have obviously put minimal effort in this subject (seeing it happened nearly at the same time as my post). Nevertheless, well done! You have offered your opinion and I am sure many evolutionists are thanking you for it. However, you missed a very important point. Dr Walt Brown has offered his interpretation on the evidence and you offered your comments on his interpretation. Both are speculations and I'm ok with that. I accept that no one was there to know exactly what happened. However, I do know that Dr Walt Brown is very educated and his opinion matters to a lot more people than your opinion does AND he has put a lot more effort in his material than you have in your comments against it. The truth is that Dr Walt Brown is more educated and knowledgeable than James Hutton, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin put together. Why you choose to believe them over Dr Walt Brown, I have no idea. If you really think you know better, I challenge you to take him up on his written debate offer http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ422.html#wp2206547.

Now David, you really confused me with your post dated November 06 2009 at 03:57:16. It sort of sounded like a no-you-didn't-oh-yes-I-did kind of post. Apparently you think that I have been corrected on the assumptions associated with radiometric dating, geologic column and sedimentary layers. You must be reading a different guestbook. Please double check your accusations before making further comments. It is obvious that your disapproval is not aimed against me (who you refer to as requiring "education on the subjects") but with anyone who demotes the evolutionist view and promotes the creationist worldview. Otherwise, you would have accepted Dr Walt Brown's opinion on basis that he is highly educated.

Now, let's get something right; when you're asked to give evidence for macroevolution, your reply "You have been given numerous research materials" can only be true and acceptable if you've actually provided research materials that acts as evidence! Furthermore, you then cannot proceed with insults to support your claim. That's just bad science. Let's get one more thing right; you can't go around saying that people on this guestbook (other than you, richard, jim and carl) are uneducated, ignorant and liars unless they "get an education" which is then proven by accepting your religious views. That's also bad science. What's even funnier than that (and this is really funny) is that Jimmy boy immediately backs you up by saying "Thank you, David, for another excellent post". You must all be kidding me. This has happened before. We all must be reading different materials on the same guesbook. We appear to have "evolved" from closed minds to closed eyes - or is that devolved? How would I ever know without an education? :)

David, here is an example of your post November 06 2009 at 03:57:16:

Lie that you have been corrected on. Evolution (both micro and macro) is not a world view but is an observed fact and natural process. You have been given links to some of the places where hovind has been allowed to have the last word on this site. Also your comments regarding dating methods and the geologic column have already been debunked. I see no point in giving references cause i know you will just ignore them in favor of continued deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, also known as lying.

iweb analytics

First of all, why did you mix macro and micro evolution together? Micro is a fact, whilst macro is a fairytale. Remember, that's why you can't offer any proof. Keep up! It's a world view because you interpret the evidence into your theory (belief system) not the other way around. My comments regarding radiometric dating and geologic column is not debunked. Give one example of this and hurry because I am beginning to form the opinion that it is you who is lacking education!!!! And for THIS you called me a liar. And to think that Jimmy boy referred to this post as "...another excellent post" is just hilarious ;)

I really believe that you guys think of yourselves as spokesmen of this theory/hypothesis (wait...apologies "scientific-theory" - lol) and defenders of this website? I'll be honest with you, even I could do a better job defending your hypothesis than you can. You're just bad, really bad (and embarrassing because of your language and unprofessional behaviour).

Jimmy your following comments in your post dated November 07 2009 at 16:51:51amuses me:

One of the main reasons why I post here is to affirm nonChristian detractors of Hovind in their belief that he is dangerous. He both applauds and recommends war crimes against Muslims, and heads (or headed) an organization (CSE) that seeks to spread his views globally.

This website has nothing to do with any of the above claims!. This site would not even exist if you didn't believe in macroevolution? Let's make this clear to every visitor of this site! The champion of your worldview is death! The weakest must go (DIE) in order for the strongest/fittest can stay (and multiply). How could you even know the difference between absolute right and wrong? With this understanding, how can YOU or any of your closed-minded evolutionist friends even past judgement regarding any moral issue. Therefore, I predict that your obsession against Kent Hovind is connected with a serious underlying issue with a personal struggle, grudge or a possible direct anger against God (thus against creationists).

Back to Science! I have had a DVD for a couple of years now entitled "Thousands Not Billions". I recently found the on-line book version of this which I thought I will include in this post in response to the assumptions made on radiometric dating and young/old Earth http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qioOpxzI3joC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false. David, you will be impressed, this book is written by educated people. Let's see if you will respect THEIR opinion! Also I wonder whether Richard (tre) will write a substantial counter book within 5 minutes :). I look forward to hearing from you.




6 November 12 2009 at 21:59:57
Name: trebob
Comments: Hello again Heyo. Most scientists spend years studying to obtain a degree in one discipline, so it is not unfair for us to ask you to spend some of your time (possibly days, weeks, or even months) studying what the scientific concepts you might object to actually state and the scientific methodology used to develop them.

Regarding your question in your post on November 12 2009 at 21:33:06, it is not a difficult one at all. There are several lines of evidence that show a literal account of Genesis does not fit with the evidence including the Bible itself and other historical events. I have two blog entries titled "Creationists and starlight" and "Young earth creationism vs. population growth." I will also note that you refused to address these observations the last time you were here. You will find them among the materials you have been asked to review in the upcoming link.

Please come back after having studied the following materials and answering the related questions.

http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html

7 November 12 2009 at 21:33:06
Name: Heyo
Comments: Do you believe God incapable of performing such a feat to create the world in a matter of days? This will be a hard one for you.

8 November 12 2009 at 21:30:34
Name: Heyo
Comments: pity

9 November 12 2009 at 18:49:41
Name: Jim Smith
Comments:
I think this is a good time to repeat a post I made a month ago. I've made a correction to it, enclosed in square brackets.

****************
Beginning of my post from a month ago
****************

October 16 2009 at 14:49:52
Name:
Comments:
I think I should explain something as background to the post I made yesterday.

One of the main reasons why I post here is to affirm nonChristian detractors of Hovind in their belief that he is dangerous. He both applauds and recommends war crimes against Muslims, and heads (or headed) an organization (CSE) that seeks to spread his views globally.

In addition, one of the crimes for which he is currently in prison, is intimidation of witnesses in his tax-fraud case. Finally, his CSE, in an attempt to silence his critics, criminally perjured itself by falsely asserting that it held copyright to the materials in his critics' videos.

Although most of Hovind's supporters are honest, well-intentioned people who simply do not realize what a warped character he is, Hovind also has a hard core of supporters who are willing to lie through their teeth for him.

As an example of what warped folks such supporters themselves are, they typically excoriate his critics for "crucifying" Hovind, while having no particular problem with Hovind's suggestion that [US troops use hollow-point ammo filled with pigs' blood in Iraq, and his approval of massacring Muslim prisoners of war, then dumping them in mass graves filled with pigs' guts.]

Three such Hovind supporters whom we've encountered here are Heyo, A Guest, and most recently, John Harris.

So, yes, Hovind is dangerous, and his detractors, both Believer and nonBeliever, have every justification for seeking to expose him.

*******************
End of my old post
*******************

10 November 12 2009 at 06:57:59
Name: david
Comments: "so insults... "

Only your own past track record. Who do you think is to blame for that?

"... and no evidence?"

Ignoring the mountains of evidence that have already been provided again are we? "I, like trebob, refuse to keep providing you with the same material that you have already, repeatedly, refused to read." Jim Smith November 12 2009 at 03:22:02

"I wish to have an honest debate."

In an honest debate it is required that both parties posses factual knowledge of the topic. You can demonstrate you have this by completing Tre’s quiz.

http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html

See also Heyo’s posts starting on May 23 2009 at 14:46:04.

   Next

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>
Notice : Phaistos Networks has no responsibility for the content featured in this Guestbook
Free Pathfinder Guestbooks by Pathfinder - The Greek Portal

©1996-2014 Phaistos Networks S.A.