121 November 19 2009 at 23:39:02
Name: John H
Comments: Hi guys, it's great to see your numbers evolving (I mean growing) - lol
Let's start with 4truth November 13 2009 at 02:53:35:
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."
There appears to be some confusion my friend 4truth. Your language (ie "BS shot down") implies that you are unhappy (or indeed angry). Have you not been following the posts very well? Are you not aware that this website is promoting a fantasy called macroevolution and I have been asking for watertight evidence all along? Also, are you under the impression that I am forcing creationist views? Let me remind you (and the rest of the visitors and gang on this guestbook) what my points are:
If you feel you can provide any useful input in this debate, then please go ahead. However, if you're simply here to add support to the Three Musketeers, then be my guest (oh, let's not forget the hero Carl). One more thing; if fighting against these items above (ie fighting closed mindedness, fighting giving misleading information and fighting unproven unscientific theories), qualifies for winning the golden crocoduck award then excellent, put my name down, I'll be honoured. Finally, give me the name of the school you went to so that I can visit it to help those who, no doubt, tried hard to educate you (I mean that in a nice way). I hope you won't be too upset to know that my intention is to remove ALL the lies from our text books and museums that support the known LIES behind the hypothesis (not to remove the hypothesis itself). Any good educated person would support this cause. Do I have your vote?
From Heyo November 13 2009 at 03:18:09:
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.
Indeed agreed Heyo. Both are religious. The evidence around us can be made to fit both theories (sometimes one theory better than the other). I'm happy for both to co-exist but neither one to be called "science". Even our young children are now being brainwashed with lies in young/baby books!
Re Jim's post November 13 2009 at 04:44:58
I'll also note that Harris has still registered no objection to Hovind's sentiments regarding Muslims.
You are mistaken brother Jim. I responded to this statement in my post dated November 06 2009 at 01:30:37. Regardless of your opinion about this matter (remembering that you can't be the judge of knowing absolute right and wrong as an evolutionist), the reason for your attack on Kent Hovind (and the dedication of this whole website to him), is because of he's attack on evolution. If my assumption is not correct, then why are you not fighting against the war crimes of Adolf Hitler? Clearly, Adolf is an evolutionist, so we better leave him alone, right?
Another from Jim (same date as above):
...Harris's source maintained that meteorites are actually Eath rocks that were not only contaminated by the Flood, but blasted into space by cataclysmic events associated with it. This, supposedly, explains how mineral grains enclosed within solid nickel-iron meteors happen to have ratios of isotopes that indicate that the meteors are actually bilons of years old.
Jimmy buddy, your response is very disappointing. I sometimes get the impression that you just object for the sake of it. I used to think you just objected to people with lack of knowledge or education. I realise now what's going on. You simply object to ANYONE who brings another theory to the table that could possibly contradict your views. Please pass this on to David who apparently thinks that this debate requires you to have an education. For the rest of the world who want an education (not an indoctrination) and are open minded please revisit http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html which Jim disapproves of (you might be interested in the credentials of the person who wrote the book http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook).
More from Jim on November 16 2009 at 03:53:45.
Just so Heyo and John Harris will know, I most definitely am not going to "just chill out" about Hovind's advocacy of war crimes about Muslims. Instead, I will continue to work to expose him.
If exposing lies and advocacy of war crimes is your mission, then you must have very high moral principles. That's a good thing. Therefore, it's logical to assume that you will have no problems helping me to expose and irradicate the lies that support the macroevolution hypothesis in the name of science? (not a hypethetical question)
Just for the record, I am really missing you Carl. Have you given up on me? Don't you want to play anymore? We were doing so well exposing all the scientific assumptions made behind this website. I was continually pushed to expose the inaccuracies of this website and when I started doing it, you left me (and just when it got interesting) :(
Finally, just for the record, apparently jim, trebob (richard), david (and now 4truth) know that lying is bad and passionately fight against it on nearly every single post. Although I totally agree with them (ie re lying being totally unacceptable), how do THEY really know that? Where is it written that lying is a forbidding fruit in the holy book of evolution? Did the prophet Charles Darwin tell them that? Or did the pope Richard Dawkins proclaim it? How do they really know that being a liar is bad? I really must know? I thought this religion relied on "random mutation and the survival of the fittest". Wow, macroevolution IS really amazing! It evolves with moral principles and everything! You should worship it one day. Oh wait...you do! (check out the Oxford American Dictionary; it fits) ;)
Ok, let's remind visitors who have just arrived to the scene. There is nooooooooooo watertight proof of macroevolution. None of the evolutionists or regular visitors to this guestbook managed to offer any indisputable evidence. Having said that, what is very apparent to everyone; is that evolutionists have bad manners and use insults as a tactic for intimidation and to mask their inability to defend their religion which they call science. And THAT is a fact in most debate scenarios.
Here is a wild idea for evolutionists: bring your watertight evidence to the table or alternatively just be polite! Is that too much to ask for? Do you think you can manage that? :)Love you all
122 November 19 2009 at 18:53:27
Name: BiggerIssuesatStake (126.96.36.199)
Comments: "the government which governs least governs best"
123 November 18 2009 at 18:00:11
Name: Heyo (188.8.131.52)
Comments: He compared my post to that of a man who beats his wife, therefore inherently implying that I am a man who beats his wife. If this was not his intent why is it relevant unless to detract from the issue at hand?
124 November 18 2009 at 00:50:26
Comments: "So he didn't actually call me one he just implied it."
No he did not. Why do you continue to lie Heyo?
"Perhaps just another way to avoid the real subject?"
While you continue to bask in willfull ignorance but yet claim victory…
"trebob and jim's debate method
step one: Ignore anything that a creationist says it is important to not hear anyone else point of view. Reason: they are obviously misguided and it is up to me to change that."
Your point of view IS wrong and demonstratably so. Yet you continue to claim that your side should be heard by scientists even though its wrong. In science ideas that are shown to be wrong are discarded. On the other hand all your arguments against science and evolution have been shown to be wrong yet you refuse to study and of the references given to you. Who is it now that thinks its not important to hear anyone elses point of view?
"step two: make baseless accusations by calling them racists, hate mongers, and proceed to throw meaningless insults at them. Reason: Kent hovind said these things so they must believe it as all creationists are the same in every aspect (they just don't realize it)"
No such thing was implied. Why do you continue to lie Heyo?
"step three: they may come up with good arguments against evolution..."
No creationist to date has done this, and very few creationists (not even Hovind) have taken the first step of showing they know anything about evolution.
"...this is why t is important to continue the ignorance"
Your own arguments have been debunked that is why it is important for you to continue the ignorance.
"These can be easily countered by filling the page with youtube videos and wikipedia articles containing bias opinions that use speculation over science."
Ok. First, you’ve already shown that you wouldn’t know science if it jumped up and bit you in the @$$. Second, I have seen very few wikipedia articles posted. You tried to pull this stunt back in June and you failed miserably. Third, the materials presented in those videos when not referenced at the end as such with the Hovind debunking videos can easily be checked up on at the viewers leisure. This is after all the proper method for checking claims in a scientific debate and its very telling of your real intentions that you have presented no rebuttal or debunking of them.
"reason: These videos have to be hard core evidence because the people on them call themselves scientists, therefore it is science and not just opinion."
Ummm… No… that’s not it at all. You accuse everyone else of being closed minded but when it comes to the material presented in those links and videos you have no valid rebuttal and when and that’s when you can actually bother to read them.
"step four: at this point if anyone has lasted this long an effective method is to post an ignorance post telling them that you won;t listen anymore."
If its been shown that you don’t know what their talking about why should they? To post another quote from tre’s blog “a bloke who is a professor of dentistry for 40 years does not have a debate with some idiot who removes his teeth with string and a door”
In this post be sure to include that whenever they post again that you are going to post the same message over and over again. This will be efficient as no longer do we need to spend time pretending to argue but now can copy and paste our post over and over again.
"Reason: They are obviously misguided and will be their entire life, why waste my time learning the truth."
Trebob was a creationist just like you and then leared the truth. The reasons you give above Heyo are more akin to your own tactics. What reason have you given for real scientists to take you seriously when you’ve already shown you don’t know the first thing about the topics you want to argue against and that you refuse to study them? None. You ever gonna start telling the truth there Heyo?
Typical creationist debate method:
Step 1: Make a few claims about evolution but don't do a lick of research before. Reason: It's much easier to make mainstream science look bad when you don't know anything about it.
Step 2: If those claims are completely and utterly destroyed refuse to acknowledge it and keep repeating them anyway. Reason: We don't want our claims to be up against real scrutiny now do we? That would mean creationist would actually have to abide by the rules of science.
Step 3: Repeat those debunked claims long enough so that someone who knows just as little about science as you will eventually hear it. Reason: Bring more into the fold. As creationists we don't have facts on our side so we have to rely on strength in numbers.
Step 4: When real scientists won't take your claims seriously, lie about it and say you are being persecuted. Reason: It's easier than getting an education.
125 November 18 2009 at 00:05:26
Comments: The only thing I can say is that it is so evil to read in your holy book that lying is one of the greatest sins then you keep lying to people. That is what Kent Hovind has done and for that he is now in jail where he belongs. What a hypocrite ? I can't believe that I wasted some of my valuble time listening to that hypocrite !
126 November 17 2009 at 23:50:15
Comments: So he didn't actually call me one he just implied it. Sorry I guess I still didn't realize how even doing so is relevant in an argument about evolution. Perhaps just another way to avoid the real subject? Doesn't really detract from the behavior you have exhibited on this entire guest book. There is pretty much a formula you use to argue.
trebob and jim's debate method
step one: Ignore anything that a creationist says it is important to not hear anyone else point of view. Reason: they are obviously misguided and it is up to me to change that.
step two: make baseless accusations by calling them racists, hate mongers, and proceed to throw meaningless insults at them. Reason: Kent hovind said these things so they must believe it as all creationists are the same in every aspect (they just don't realize it)
step three: they may come up with good arguments against evolution this is why t is important to continue the ignorance. These can be easily countered by filling the page with youtube videos and wikipedia articles containing bias opinions that use speculation over science. reason: These videos have to be hard core evidence because the people on them call themselves scientists, therefore it is science and not just opinion.
step four: at this point if anyone has lasted this long an effective method is to post an ignorance post telling them that you won;t listen anymore. In this post be sure to include that whenever they post again that you are going to post the same message over and over again. This will be efficient as no longer do we need to spend time pretending to argue but now can copy and paste our post over and over again. Reason: They are obviously misguided and will be their entire life, why waste my time learning the truth.
127 November 17 2009 at 05:50:48
Comments: "By the way you still consider me a man who beats his wife? that was pretty funny when you implied that after I told you to chill out."
Ummm, ya thats not what he said.
"In brief, your behavior is much like that of an manipulative, abusive husband: making baseless, lying attacks, and when then proven wrong, blaming his wife for **making such a big deal of it**." May 25 2009 at 15:22:30
"I did not imply that you're an abusive husband. I only noted (see the longer of my posts from 25 May) that you've behaved like one in this guest book. By that I mean that you've done nothing here but lie, make false accusations, blame your victims for **making a big deal**, out of your false accusations, and jerk trebob and me around endlessly when we've repeatedly requested that you either substantiate them, or else retract them."
May 26 2009 at 15:58:40
Next time make sure you actually quote people correctly and dont twist their words.
128 November 17 2009 at 04:52:22
Comments: I do think you get to uptight, and yes you do need to chill out. Truly if you wish to be an effective debater you would pr4esetn such facts i a manner without insult and discrimination against creationists. It is shameful to resort to such tactics and claim to actually want to change someones opinion. Truth be told I can;t change your mind, and you can't change mine. We are stuck in our ways and the only one who can really decide is ourselves. So I say chill out cause if you want to be more effective in presenting the facts you need to spend less time ripping on people, insulting them, and bashing their lifestyle, and a little more time just putting the facts straight forward.
By the way you still consider me a man who beats his wife? that was pretty funny when you implied that after I told you to chill out. It gave excellent proof to back up my point. And my question still stands: Are you referring back to this argument months ago in order to avoid the real issue?
I guess the facts can only speak for themselves after you coat them in bias and insults. haha
129 November 17 2009 at 00:37:50
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
And once again, Heyo is having a little trouble telling the truth.
In his post of May 23 2009 at 14:46:04, he said
"[Jim Smith] claims "Hovind supporters", as he would label them, to be dangerous, yet I see not one act that could be classified as threatening to society except that he failed to pay some taxes."
In response to that statement, I gave Heyo a list of acts that included (but was not limited to) Hovind's witness-intimidation, threatening a judge, and advocating war crimes against Muslims. His reply, **You just need to chill out man you are way to up tight over such a small matter** was a response to that list of threatening acts.
Therefore, Heyo's claim **I tell you to chill out when you get heated to the point that you lump all creationists in the same category arguing that they are all the same** is a deliberate, knowing lie.
It is also a lie that I **lump all creationists in the same category arguing that they are all the same", and "call all creationists hate mongrels and that they ALL are guilty of approving of war crimes."
Someone named Etienne Meyburgh made similar accusations a few months ago. Here was my reply, and it applies equally to Heyo:
** From Jim Smith, June 17 2009 at 16:30:31
Regarding your unsupported accusations in general, I repeat what I said in my previous post:
Since you have still not produced any evidence whatsoever for the accusations you've made against me in your posts, any reasonable person will conclude that you have none. I post here as a Christian witness to the people whom Hovind and his supporters have wronged with their lies and slanders. The opinions of people who take posts like yours seriously do not interest me in the least.
Regarding your specific unsubstantiated accusation that I believe all Hovind supporters are alike, did you not read my reply to "Look", who made the same accusation? See my post of 13 June 2009 at 14:42:10, in which I said
*****Hovind supporters are Not all alike. One of the most significant differences among them is how they respond to [Hovind's approval of atrocities against Muslims]. Half of his suporters are appalled, and half either agree, or say that these statements are no big deal.
In summary, at the time of his first post here (May 23 2009 at 14:46:04) Heyo was absolutely clueless about Hovind's antisocial behaviors. I provided a list of them to Heyo, whereupon blew them off by saying "**You just need to chill out man you are way to up tight over such a small matter.**". Heyo's now trying to lie his way out of what he said.
Not surprisingly, Heyo is just as clueless, ignorantly dismissive, and dishonest about science. That is why trebob, David, and I will not discuss anything with him until Heyo actually spends some time learning about science, and demonstrates that he has done so by taking trebob's quiz at
130 November 16 2009 at 20:16:32
Name: Refounder (184.108.40.206)
Comments: So much time wasted and yet not a single voice has been heard on either side
we can shout we can talk what we believe to be reason until our voice gives way, but not a single thing has been changed
as humans we have the right to choose our own paths
we can argue but our arguments fall on deaf ears and in the end we are only speaking to ourselves and reinforcing the wrong in our belief
As humans we will never learn that we are allowed to choose our own path, but the only right path is God's
As Christians we must know that we can not change the minds of other, but we can present the facts if they choose to listen then that is their choice
If they do not and ridicule you for your belief then this is another testament to our faith
We are all born with the Word of God, but only some choose to listen
<< 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>