101 December 07 2009 at 22:38:28
Name: yqqd (126.96.36.199)
Comments: yeah no one really listens on this site
102 December 07 2009 at 20:15:05
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hi qd4r,
The following excerpts from some older posts might interest you.
** First Excerpt, and my response **
February 01 2008 at 07:29:12
Comments: … Even though I have found this guestbook repetitive and depressing I know that you and trebob are only trying to help. … [F]or the benefit of the fundies who may be confused about where you, a Christian missionary, stand on evolution, maybe you should think about it, decide without pressure, then articulate it.
February 02 2008 at 18:36:14
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hi Exasperated,
Actually, I prefer not to enter into the creation/evolution debate in this guestbook. Doing so would distract from my point: that we Christians have a clear biblical duty to disfellowship Hovind, for the simple reason that he is a defiantly unrepentant liar, slanderer, criminal, and hate-monger.
** Second Excerpt, and my response **
June 09 2009 at 12:45:03
Comments: I totally caught a video on an old episode of America's Funniest Home Videos last night featuring Kent Hovind.
It was a wedding, and he was the minister. He gets on his cell phone because he gets a call. While performing the wedding, as some kind of joke or something.
how fitting, a person whose whole life is a freakin joke. From his ministry to hit arguments in evolution. he belongs on that show. he belongs in prison and i hope he charles manson's his tenure there. (life, no parole)
June 09 2009 at 14:36:51
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hi Kevin,
I'm no fan of Kent Hovind, as you'll see if you go back through this guest book or read the materials that the webmaster posted for me here. (http://kent-hovind.com/christian/index.htm). Hovind is a willfully ignorant incompetent whom we Christians have an obligation to expel from fellowship because he is also a defiantly unrepentant liar, slanderer, criminal, and hatemonger.
However, I have to object to your saying that you hope he gets "Charles Manson's sentence: life with no parole". One of the most common claims of Hovind supporters is that his prosecution and imprisonment was a miscarriage of justice (to put it mildly), perpetrated by people who hate him and want to silence him. A sentence such as you propose would be completely illegal, and expressing this kind of sentiment only confirms his supporters' fear that they are a despised majority in danger of becoming a persecuted minority. That fear is one of the things that makes Hovind supporters dangerous.
103 December 07 2009 at 05:25:22
Name: qd4r (188.8.131.52)
Comments: yeah no one really listens on this site
104 December 05 2009 at 19:39:40
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: HOVIND'S APPROVAL OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST MUSLIMS
New visitors may wish to read the quotes that John Harris (John H) refers to in his most recent post. In my experience, half of Hovind's suuporters are appalled by these quotes, while the other half accuse me of having some hidden motive for making these statements known.
By the way, the quotes are from transcripts by webmaster Carl Marychurch (kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm) While Hovind's organization "Creation Science Evangelism" is aware of them (I told CSE myself), no one at CSE, to my knowledge, has ever disputed their authenticity or accuracy.
**** FIRST HOVIND QUOTE REGARDING MUSLIMS (Truth Radio 8 May 2006)
Just get everyone of our soldiers over there in Iraq right now, dip your bullets in pigs blood. Let it be known, "Guys, we're here to help your country, we really are. We're not the bad guys. We'd like to help. You guys have a problem. We got rid of your evil dictator and we would like to see you rebuild a decent country so you can enjoy life. However, if you're going to shoot at us, we're going to shoot back, and you're not going to get to go to Heaven and forget those 72 virgins because they are not going to be there because we've got pigs blood on all of our bullets". Get your hollow point bullet. Put a little pigs blood inside and fill 'em with wax and just carry them with your from now on. And if anyone shoots at you shoot back. And I guarantee it would stop the violence in Iraq in thirty seconds.
**** SECOND HOVIND QUOTE REGARDING MUSLIMS (Source: Truth Radio 30 December 2003 @ 26:30)
I told you about the Philippines - the Muslims - they had an insurrection a hundred years ago. Some Muslims were attacking, you know, people over there, yeah. And so they captured 50 of these guys - the American general did - and he tied them all up to poles. Right in front of 'em he slaughtered a couple of pigs and dipped all the bullets into the pig blood and shot 49 of them with bullets dipped in pig blood. [.....] [According to Muslims] if you taste a pig or touch a pig or if you eat pig meat, man, you're damned forever, you have no chance of going to Heaven. So they dipped their bullets in pig blood - shot all these guys - dumped them in a hole and poured the pigs guts all over the top of them. And then let the 50th guy go. And we never had any trouble out of the Muslims there. [laughter]
105 December 05 2009 at 10:52:32
Comments: John Harris wrote:
"how could an evolutionist tell the difference between right and wrong or have moral principles"
Individuals don’t evolve. Populations do. Populations where individuals trust each other and work together are more likely to survive than a population full of backstabbers fighting only for the individual. This implies and requires treating other people well. Evolution also explains how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how actions that favor only the individual can violate the trust and cooperation that goes into these bondings, thus explaining how evolution can account for moral codes against murder, lying and other sins. Additionally as a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil… just as stated in Genesis.
"http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/reading-posts-about-astronomy-made-by.html to dispute Dr Walt Brown who has invested a considerably long time into his research and calculations.”
Apparently not since Brown leaves out the problems the hydroplate model creates and gets other facts wrong as well.
“By the way I have also seen the references he included in order to discredit the process of this debate (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown2.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html). Is this an excuse for not applying for the debate? Is trebob REALLY held back by the excessive amount of preparation and paperwork needed for the debate?”
Lets take a look at what these links really say:
"People have attempted to debate Walt Brown, but Brown refuses. oe Meert signed Brown's contract in 1996. He proposed (in accordance with the contract terms) that evidence regarding a global flood be a topic for discussion within the debate. Brown has steadfastly refused to debate Meer."
"I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, and who teaches a Bible class every week at my church. In addition, however, I am a Vanderbilt-educated, naturally skeptical lawyer who wants creation science claims to be backed up by evidence… …Dr. Brown has disappointed me, because his misinterpretation and/or hyper-elevation of the term "procedures" looks like evasion. Of course, I might be entirely wrong, and I would welcome correction."
"In short, for all his professed eagerness to debate, Brown seems remarkably adept at avoiding it. One could almost form the impression that his debate offer, with its long list of preconditions and considerable overhead, is designed to avoid debate except on terms that Brown judges favorable to himself. Both evolutionists and other creationists have frequently challenged Brown's arguments, and asked him to respond, without hiding behind conditions and excuses. Brown has always refused. So, who's afraid to debate?"
Is John Harris really held back by the concept of being honest about what the linked to articles state.
"The reference he gives is "29+ evidences for macro evolution." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/". Trebob, doesn't seem to follow posts very well,…"
And you do?
"… so regretfully I will have to repeat myself. I actually asked for watertight/indisputable evidence. Another prime example of how trebob likes to twist questions, evidence, responses and facts."
The only one distorting facts and evidence is you.
"For those who are interested, I have included a link to dispute the above http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp."
The author of the original article has addressed the trueorigin nonsense at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
"Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
1. Straw man arguments, 2. Red herrings, 3. Self-contradictions, 4. Equivocation, 5.Two wrongs make a right, 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident, 7. Ignoratio elenchi, 8. Naive theological assumptions, 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics, 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method, 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses", 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, 13. Misleading mis-quotes, 14. Fallacies of accent, 15. Distortion of scientific controversies, 16. Arguments from authority, 17. False analogies."
In other words, the trueorigins.org article fails as a scientific rebuttal and john still leaves the provided evidence for macro evolution unchallenged.
Btw, it is indeed odd that you provide html links to other sources but not trebobs blog. Why the bias?
"So trebob wants to see is a bunny or other mammal in the cambrian rock to falsify evolution. Interesting! According to the creationist worldview, it is also unlikely that he will find these creatures in the cambrian rock, so he will have to wish for something else."
You are being dishonest again. A literal global flood would have jumbled up all these species, not laid them down with debunked hydrological sorting. There might also be other non-creationist and non-darwinian models that could account for a such a find.
"However, much more interestingly, to falsify evolution he wants also to see a mermaid (half woman, half fish) or centaur (half man, half horse). Is this some kind of joke? How and why would that go against evolution?"
You are being dishonest again, and showing you have no idea how evolution works. The gene transfers that take place in evolution would not explain such creatures as evolution states they are not related by common descent. Therefore finding them would be evidence against the theory.
"Finally trebob wants "a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating"? He should have a look at this http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/twin_sister_mechanism_prevents_formation_of_genetic_mutations."
You should have a look at it too. From the article: "Fortunately, nature has provided cells with two alternative, last-resort repair systems that can take command when the first rescue mechanism fails. One system is inaccurate ? it repairs genes while permitting the formation of a relatively small number of mutations. Though this poses a certain risk, it ensures the cell's continued existence. Equally important, it increases genetic diversity, allowing natural selection, the driving force of evolution, to come into play."
So your own source proposes no mechanism that would prevent accumulating mutations. Next time try reading the articles first.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
You have been called out on this one already so please give us the rest of the quote. Until then you are being dishonest again.
“...the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.”
You leave out the rest of the quote and ignore all the documented transitional fossils. Again, you are being dishonest.
"You see for Darwin (unlike trebob), all it would have taken is to show him the complexity of a cell and/or tell him that…"
Irreducible complexity has long since been debunked. This has all been covered already.
"…we still haven't found the intermediate and transitional links."
Liar liar pants on fire. We not only have found many which are not disputed at all except among creationists, but many such finds were predicted before they were known to exist. Again, all covered already.
"The truth is that trebob is just stuck in one worldview and refuses to budge."
That’s a perfect description of you considering you have been proven wrong and insist on distorting facts, science, and scientific articles in order to maintain your debunked and faulty understanding the ideas you oppose.
"In conclusion, it is clear that trebob's blog is biased and inaccurate (very similar to the scientific contents of this website)."
Your claims of inaccuracy on this site and (just about anywhere else for that matter) have already been shot down. To quote Carl "you have a strange way of keeping score."
"It is driven by the obsession that macroevolution is a fact."
Macro and micro are the same process. Micro over short periods of time with small changes will become large changes over a large period of time. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.
Johns claims have been thoroughly destroyed. There is no way he can be honest and not realize this by now. The newest post from John Harris is just more of his trademark dishonesty.
106 December 04 2009 at 20:56:52
Name: Jim Smith
For new visitors who want to know more ... In addition to the links mentioned below, here's another by trebob regarding posts made by "Heyo":
** http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-creationist-lying-and-lunacy.html **
107 December 04 2009 at 20:19:09
Name: Jim Smith
For new visitors who want to know more
Trebob has an annotated, chronological collection of Harris's posts at ** http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html **.
Trebob's blog regarding Heyo's posts is at ** http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/well-it-looks-like-we-have-objection-to.html **.
108 December 04 2009 at 03:30:06
Name: John H
Hi Jimmy boy, I see you have resisted responding to me other than reminding visitors of the childish blog that trebob prepared in my honour :) If it only was not so biased and had a twisted way of presenting the truth, it would actually be useful :)
For example, to my question re how could an evolutionist tell the difference between right and wrong or have moral principles, he responded in his blog as follows:
I checked the above and now I would like to challenge any evolutionist visitor (and the "educated" trebob himself) to read and extract one (just one) sentence or paragraph from any of the above responses that really gives a satisfactory answer to my question above (from an evolutionist worldview). To help trebob understand what I'm saying (because based on his blog I can see that he hasn't been able to follow my argument very well), here is an example of the first reference http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA620.html:
Which one of the above responses actually answers the question 'how can an evolutionist have moral principles or know absolute right from wrong?' This is typical of trebob (and most evolutionists) when a question is raised. Unfortunately, all the above references carry the same weight in substance and logic. Regarding item 4 above, you better check again. There are many evolutionists (yes educated ones) who say exactly that (ie "humans arose purely by chance"); ie macroevolution evolved from random mutation through natural selection without aim or purpose!!!!Bearing this in mind, I challenge you again to answer this question properly this time. Oh yes, don't forget to update the blog :)
In the meantime, I would still like brother Jim to answer (in HIS own words) how evolutionists actually know absolute right from wrong! I understand you don't like liars or advocates of war crimes. In your worldview, how did you evolve to know that these attributes are wrong? If you insist on ignoring this question, then I must conclude that you can't really tell the difference and that your comments against Kent Hovind are meaningless and just a tactic to ad hominem against him! One other possibility is that you have a Muslim background (or family) and you feel his comments are particularly offensive to you, your family and/or your culture! So what is the real problem?
Ok, let's expose another example of trebob's biased blog. Apparently he disapproves of my reference that gives an alternative view on where meteorites come from (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html). It is worth noting that within a few minutes of me posting this information on November 06 2009 at 01:30:37, trebob created a blog (http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/reading-posts-about-astronomy-made-by.html) to dispute Dr Walt Brown who has invested a considerably long time into his research and calculations. If trebob is obviously so qualified and intelligent that he doesn't need to invest ANY time before he feels he can discredit this website (as it was posted within a few minutes of my post), then maybe he should proceed to accept the written debate offer http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ422.html#wp2206547 with Dr Walt Brown. By the way I have also seen the references he included in order to discredit the process of this debate (http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown2.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html). Is this an excuse for not applying for the debate? Is trebob REALLY held back by the excessive amount of preparation and paperwork needed for the debate? Surely he should have no problems with this as he already appears to waste alot of time creating useless blogs. Having said that, unlike a debate, with blogs he doesn't have to apply much thinking or research into his material :)
There is more; I have a little more time left. Apparently according to dear trebob's blog, I have been given numerous watertight materials on evolution. The reference he gives is "29+ evidences for macro evolution." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/". Trebob, doesn't seem to follow posts very well, so regretfully I will have to repeat myself. I actually asked for watertight/indisputable evidence. Another prime example of how trebob likes to twist questions, evidence, responses and facts. For those who are interested, I have included a link to dispute the above http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp.
Oh, I just can't resist to do one more. Apparently according to trebob's blog he said:
He is the reference that trebob is referring to:
So trebob wants to see is a bunny or other mammal in the cambrian rock to falsify evolution. Interesting! According to the creationist worldview, it is also unlikely that he will find these creatures in the cambrian rock, so he will have to wish for something else. However, much more interestingly, to falsify evolution he wants also to see a mermaid (half woman, half fish) or centaur (half man, half horse). Is this some kind of joke? How and why would that go against evolution? No wonder I originally ignored this statement. Finally trebob wants "a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating"? He should have a look at this http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/twin_sister_mechanism_prevents_formation_of_genetic_mutations.
I think what our friend trebob is not aware of, is that this hypothesis (macroevolution) has such a religious hold on evolutionist that even if evidence were discovered, they would either be ignored, go unreported or be given a pathetic excuse to explain AWAY the discovery to continue supporting the hypothesis. Let's go back to what Darwin said in his book:
You see for Darwin (unlike trebob), all it would have taken is to show him the complexity of a cell and/or tell him that we still haven't found the intermediate and transitional links. Unfortunately, for trebob, I still don't know what it will really take (other than proving some myth re mermaid or centaur). The truth is that trebob is just stuck in one worldview and refuses to budge.
Trebob's faith which he calls science is truly unscientific, unproven, illogical and silly. I'm ok if he could just admit it's simply another religion. It appears that the more we discover the more closed minded evolutionists become.
In conclusion, it is clear that trebob's blog is biased and inaccurate (very similar to the scientific contents of this website). It is driven by the obsession that macroevolution is a fact.
Finally, to my dear friend David. Your post on November 18 2009 at 00:50:26 (in response to QuestionsThatNeedAnswering on November 24 2009 at 04:24:57) is not correct particularly the section on "Typical creationist debate method". Most people ask questions and expect a healthy neutral and informative answer. A true scientist gives both sides of the story and lets the recipient decide. Giving only a one-sided story and present it as if it were a fact, is just an indoctrination. On top of that, we have lies to sift through! I agree that no one was there when it ALL happened therefore, we must conclude that all our worldviews are religious. All we know is that whatever people say happened, doesn't happen now! Most of the time, there is no lack of education (from either side), just different interpretations and disagreement on points of views. If you or I approach this in any other way, then we are both closed-minded. Is that fair? I'm happy to respect your religious point of view if you respect mine (bearing in mind that the science fits both - sometimes one better than the other).
109 November 29 2009 at 21:37:33
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: For new visitors who want to know more ...
One of the regulars here, who goes by the name of trebob, presents John Harris's posts in chronological order, with annotations, at
**** http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html ****.
110 November 27 2009 at 02:16:13
Name: John H
Hi Heyo, it's good to have a friend in this guestbook. You know when someone is losing an argument; they resort to insult and abuse. Surely if the theory can be scientifically proven it would have been done by now (without the need for a fight). Surely there would be a simple experiment (such as Stanley Miller's for example) that would spontaneously generate life that evolves before our very eyes. Clear this doesn't exist. Yet the lack of this evidence doesn't appear to bother them. People who dispute this hypothesis are frequently told that they are considered uneducated. This statement is made despite the fact that there are many educated scientists that don't believe in this hypothesis. What a strange worldview!
From Jim November 20 2009 at 02:39:47
(1) In case Harris hasn't heard the news, Hitler died over 60 years ago, and the war crimes of the Nazis stopped in early 1945, when the Germans capitulated. Afterward, the Nazis' crimes were punished in forum after forum over the course of various decades, starting in the Nuremberg trials just after WWII.
Sure, I'm aware of that. Also, in case you don't know, there are still many Nazis in Germany today and growing (I know this; I lived there for about 3 years). And, oh yes, they love evolution! Please feel free to design a website dedicated to discredit them. Also there are Muslim terrorist who promote war crimes (I know this; I lived in the Middle East for over 10 years amongst the Muslim community). Feel free to do the same. When you've done all that, then I'll know that your fight is not against those who oppose macroevolution (ie Kent Hovind).
(2) I invite the reader to read Harris's statement about Hovind's advocacy of war crimes (November 06 2009 at 01:30:37). As you do so, remember that Harris made that namby-pamby, wimpy statement about Hovind's sickeningly cold-blooded views only after months of posting here. (Harris was made aware of Hovind's views in our responses to Harris's first post, and we reminded him of them several times.)
Not sure what you mean by saying "I invite the reader to read Harris's statement about Hovind's advocacy of war crimes".Please point out the statement you are referring to. If this website is just about a personal attack on Kent Hovind's statements and war crimes against Muslims etc, then remove all the other statements related to macroevolution (unless, of course your agenda is to promote this hypothesis, and Kent Hovind is just an excuse - or an obstacle as he demotes this hypothesis).
By the way Jim, I am still waiting for your justification as an evolutionist on how you know the difference between absolute right and wrong. Also, I know that lying is wrong because I have a belief system that tells me so. Please explain how you know lying is wrong (which is a regular accusation that appears in this guestbook from you and other evolutionist friends)?
By the way, your response to "Thousands not Billions" in your post dated November 24 2009 at 17:23:46 confirms that this debate is not about educated-evolutionist vs. uneducated-creationist worldviews. You are simply not accepting ANY worldview that contradicts yours regardless of who makes them. I would like to encourage you to read this book and see for yourself how many of the claims they make are scientifically sound. You don't have to believe in evolution, nothing bad will happen. Why won't you just wait until it's proven beyond ANY doubt? If that really happens, I'll join you :)
And now unto Scott November 20 2009 at 10:42:08. I hear that you were "a young creationist of 20 years". You made a lot of accusations in your post without support. It is indeed disappointing to see that your response was very similar in scientific content and integrity as any other evolutionist who posted before you. It is overwhelmingly apparent how all evolutionists seem to share the same attitude and closed mindedness regardless of their education or belief system. The Bible says that you will kow them by their fruit, I see no good fruit in your post. Let's examine them:
Are you saying that scientist have not come across evidence that might lead them to admit they are/were wrong? Are you saying that evolutionist have never come across a fossil they claimed to be extinct because of the layer they were found in and then later discovered them to be still alive? Are you saying that fossils are never rejected/ignored when they are found in the wrong/unexpected sedimentary layers? Are you saying that the radiometric dating never produces conflicting reading against the layers they are found? If these things were found, would they be considered as evidence against the hypothesis?
The moment you can prove it this hypothesis 100% then let’s all shout it from the mountain top. Until then, no one knows exactly what really happened. But if it makes you happy to be an evolutionist, then stick to it but don't call it science yet. Finally, can you point out how Trebob outlined what evidence might lead him to admit that he could be wrong in his post on September 11 2009 at 04:14:16.
Well Scott, I want to set your mind at rest; I have a good understanding of the way in which science works including the definitions theory, hypothesis and other aspect of scientific method etc. Nevertheless, perhaps you can enlighten me my friend and show me the error of my ways seeing you yourself were ignorant once (congratulations, evolutionists will now consider you to be educated)! I'm happy to be specific! By the way, this macroevolution debate was never about how educated one is. There are many very educated scientists that disagree with your views. Are they not all as knowledgeable as you? This whole evolutionary hypothesis is just a worldview!
Now hold your horses cowboy. "Utterly destroyed"? We must be reading different guestbooks. This is not the 1st time an evolutionist made a claim about a response in this guestbook that was either untrue or not accurate. Please be specific. These are my favourite subjects!:)!. I'm happy to revisit any of these items at anytime.
Scott, I am fully aware of the "29+evidences" given for the macroevolution hypothesis. Give me an example of the "other research references" that have not been refuted. General statements serve only to confuse. As you correctly pointed out, "29+evidences" was one of my own references given to trebob on September 19 2009 at 02:30:19 who said that "that in biology there is no distinction between macro and micro evolution". Are you aware that this reference is not proof of macroevolution? However, I see from your posting above, you would have preferred an explanation. In that case, have a look at this and see if this satisfies you http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp. The evidence can be made to fit the theory of both sides (see answer to point #2 above - lol).
If you really have to make such claims, then it's time to support it. Your accusation of "closed minded" stems from my inability to accept the hypothesis of macroevolution as being a scientific theory (ie fact). Not accepting this worldview despite the fact that we have never seen life being spontaneously generated and evolved before our very eyes is apparently being "closed minded". Actually, all I have been fighting for is to remove the lies and keep both worldviews. What you are really trying NOT to saying is that as long as I disagree with you, I am considered "closed minded" and "unwilling to get even a brief education". If you only knew how much studying I actually do!
Again (just as a true and faithful evolutionist) you accuse those who don't agree with you as "they choose to lie". Please give an example or retract your statement. This is then followed by "Sadly this is not an isolated trend in creationism". A further generalisation as a means to support your claim. Finally, I checked approximately the last 15 pages to find any references to the "laws of thermodynamics" but can't find it in this guestbook other than the joke (ie humour: something that evolutionists in this guestbook don't seem to have) I posted on October 28 2009 at 01:35:59. Is this what this comment is all about? Wow, how low do you go to prove a point!
I have studied the content of this website, the references presented by both sides, and the quiz presented by trebob at http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html. I have done a lot of research, watching, and reading over the past few weeks. Based on what I have discovered I now accept:
Yes, I agree. Science IS compatible with scripture. I love the way scripture supports science and vice versa. However, evolution and scripture (assuming you mean the Bible) are as compatible and mix with each other as water and oil mix with each other. In fact I will go as far as saying that evolution (macroevolution) is the exact OPPOSITE of scripture. The Bible tells us that death came to the world through the sin of one man but evolution tells us that man came to the world through death. These are OPPOSITEs. The Bible says that God created the World and it's contents in 6 days, but evolution tells us that the it was created in billions of years (unless of course you believe in the gap theory in which case you have other questions to answer such as the sequence of creation not matching the sequence of evolution). etc.etc.etc. I think what you are trying to say is that if we were to massage the scripture and twist it's meaning then we can make it fit the macroevolution theory (which is just what we do to the scientific evidence to fit the theory)! Finally, to your closing statement "...people who claim different more often than not will show no understanding..."; confirm yet again that not accepting your views shows lack of understanding. What a surprise! If I am being closed-minded about this, then I ask for forgiveness, but can you at least admit that you have actually excersized closed-mindedness in this very statement!
What quiz? Please give references. Obviously trebob knows all the questions (but sadly no answers) - lol - By the way, I'm not all that willing to take any silly quizzes especially from trebob, but I'm happy to answer questions if you present them on this guestbook (within the constraints of my time).
Wow, what a distorted view of Genesis and God? Firstly, it's not blasphemous to believe Genesis literally. Unlike Revelation, Genesis was not offered as a book for interpretation. God did not create a "universe that is only a few thousand years old but has an appearance of an age of billions of years". It is man who aged the world old using inaccurate tools and now we appear to be blaming God for it. It is possible that we will find better dating systems in the future that doesn't contradict the Bible. In fact, I have known evolutionists who used the exact same argument to prove their hypothesis. God did indeed "simply set things in motion with natural laws knowing what the consequences would be" but not by creating life from a simple cell (if there is such a thing) that evolved to man.
I see! Another trebob quiz. Before you use evolution (macroevolution) to start explaining things, you will have to prove it. I'm beginning to see a trend here. You actually think evolution really happened and now you are creating your own unique religion. Macroevolution is just a worldview that you can choose to believe or not. Either way, it's your choice and your business. However, when it comes to science then the only thing we can observe and test is microevolution.
You know Scott I have not been able to understand what your point is in all this (other than to try and ridicule creationists). Apparently you are a Christian. If so, what I want to know is: do you believe that God created heaven and Earth and everything in it or not? If yes, could he have done it exactly as the Bible says? Is it the case that you have put on your evolutionist spectacles and everything must fit with this theory (even the Bible)? You know Scott, there is a chance it happened just as God said it did. Bearing in mind that macroevolution is not a watertight, indisputable hypothesis, if I turn out to be wrong, I don't think God will be upset with me for believing it happened exactly as he said. But if you're wrong, do you think God will be very impressed doubting his Word! So you better be sure what you believe in.
In the meantime, I will not rest until all the lies that support this hypothesis are removed from our text books and museums. Surely that's reasonable. Will you be the first evolutionist to support me in this guestbook?
<< 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>