131 November 16 2009 at 17:30:28
Comments: I do not distance myself from his views on creationism. Hovind is quite intelligent when it comes to this topic. I have not heard this quote out of hovinds mouth before, but if he says this then yes it is quite obvious it is wrong. But the problem with you jim is that you do not even wish to argue the topics. 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. That is a fatal flaw and you no longer even argue evolution but you decide to drive away from that arguement and call all creationists hate mongrels and that they ALL are guilty of approving of war crimes. Sorry it just isnt true.
132 November 16 2009 at 03:53:45
Name: Jim smith
HEYO LIES AGAIN
I assume the last post was made by Heyo. Since he says I misquoted him, here are the relevant posts, in chronological order.
Please note that both Heyo and Harris were informed of Hovind's approval of war crimes against Muslims in my replies to their first posts. Nevertheless, the post below mine was the first time (in over three months of postings, between the two of them) that either Heyo or John Harris have ever distanced themselves from Hovind's views.
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.
(The relevant parts of the relevant posts begin.)
From Heyo, May 23 2009 at 14:46:04
"[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.
From Jim Smith, May 23 2009 at 19:52:10
[S]ince you asked for evidence of Hovind and his followers being dangerous, here it is:
(from Hovind's Truth Radio, as cited in http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm)
First Truth Radio quote begins) 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. Truth Radio 8 May 2006
(Second quote begins) 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] Source: Truth Radio 30 December 2003 @ 26:30 (Second quote ends).
I have also been present when Hovind supporters talked openly of wanting then-President Bush to use 911 as a pretext for getting rid of the Supreme Court and all of the liberal senators via a military coup. Moreover, it's a matter of public record that Hovind was convicted of witness intimidation in his tax fraud case, and then said he had ways of making life miserable for the judge.
Is that enough evidence for you?
**3** From Heyo, May 24 2009 at 11:44:20
You just need to chill out man you are way to up tight over such a small matter. Kent Hovind is not the only dangerous person out there. Many of Hitler's beliefs were originally derived from Darwin's findings, and he used "survival of the fittest" to justify the murder of over 11 million people. That sounds a bit more serious than what Kent Hovind has done.
133 November 15 2009 at 18:59:09
Comments: Sorry you misunderstood. Never once in my life have I ever been ok with the massacring of innocent lives. y argument at that time was that this site is pointless. I did not defend hovind on his alleged belief in massacring innocent lives, as I would not defend a Muslim if they believed that it is okay to massacre Christians and Jews. Nor a Christian if they believed it okay to kill Jews or Christians. Nor on a Jew who sees it okay to kill a Muslim or a Christian. My point was that those that post on this site tend to become empotional in their postings and personally attack creationists using insults and (as proven in jim's last post) misquoting. Gotta say you dug pretty deep for that one jim. Your whole connection in itself is at the time of the argument we were discussing kent hovind, I simply suggested you take a step back and stop comparing ALL creationists to him telling you to chill out. You then strike me with accepting the taking of innocent lives as okay. Sorry to confuse you in this sense, but you need to listen more.
I also want to point out that your post jim is not even a response to my last one, but more of a dodge on the issue. Is this getting to hard for you that you can no longer argue the issue and refer back to previous quotes misinterpreted in order to make a point. Sad...
134 November 14 2009 at 04:35:32
Name: Jim Smith
Once again, Heyo can put his money where his mouth is by actually studying the materials trebob presents at the link below, then taking the test.
By the way, Heyo's open-mindedness includes believing that there's nothing wrong with Hovind's witness-intimidation and approval of massacring Muslim POWS, then dumping them into mass graves filled with pigs' guts. Please see my post of June 04 2009 at 17:08:24, which begins......
Comments: GOOD GOING, DAVID
Remember this quote from Hovind supporter **Heyo**?
***"You just need to chill out man you are way to up tight over such a small matter."***
That was the response that he gave when informed of (among other things) Hovind's approval of war crimes and atrocities against Muslims, and his conviction for witness intimidation in connection with his tax-fraud case. (http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/kenthovind?pass=&page=6. See my post of May 23 2009 at 19:52:10, and his reply of May 24 at 11:44:20)
After seeing that Heyo has no problem with massacring defenseless people, it's no surprise that Heyo is also a serial liar. See posts below, for details.
135 November 14 2009 at 01:41:23
Comments: I'm sorry where was any science in trebob's web page. I read some quotes and then there was what looked like a formula that trebob tries to use to argue. Maybe I'm wrong, but in an actual debate you need to take all ideas into account, not just the ones you like which is exactly what you are saying. I have read through many of your arguments and find that not a single one uses hard, factual evidence, and is a maze of fog and smoke. This whole web page is proof in itself that if you disagree with him then he won't listen. Is it wrong for others to have a differing opinion. According to trebob apparently so.
By the wayI love the quote by Einstein "Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may,as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." It is a shame that this does not hold true to evolution, as even on this site they find it impossible to put in language anyone can understand. My guess is out of a fear that if you understand evolution you understand it's falsehoods. So their best bet is to use a formula developed by trebob in which he gives you canned responses jam packed with insults and ignorance to the subject. I do not believe you to be liars you are just hugely mistaken on the issue. The very foundation of coming up with a formula to argue is ignorant. This has plain and outright said that if anyone disagrees with me I will be ignorant and respond as such. I am sorry to repeat myself over and over on this issue, but I am trying to drive home the point that of how incredibly close minded this site is, and how hypocritical it is to call the responders close minded. A warning to anyone who may read this. Whether you are evolutionist or creationist trebob is not an open minded individual, and in arguing with him he will shut you out if he hears something he dislikes. I can only hope that he himself will make a decision to change that way as it is the only way the truth will be revealed.
136 November 13 2009 at 22:59:03
Name: Jim Smith
In the post just below mine, Heyo noted, ** I also wanted to point out that not all creationists are opposed to science. In fact a great many of them use it to prove the existence of God. It is a tired argument for an evolutionist to state that we are anti-science.**.
Fine. Then Heyo will have no further objection to finally taking the test that trebob has prepared:
*** http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science.html ***
On another subject,
CAN OPEN-MINDEDNESS BE OVERDONE?
According to John Harris, acceptance of macroevolution plunges a person into darkness, and ipso facto disqualifies that *close-minded* person from making any moral judgment whatsoever. However, should that person somehow come to embrace Young Earth Creationism, he or she will thereby become an open-minded person like Harris, Hovind, and Heyo, who recognize that it is indeed quite unobjectionable to massacre Muslim prisoners of war, and then dump their bodies into mass graves filled with pigs' guts.
Hovind is dangerous because he has sickeningly cold-blooded supporters like H squared (Harris and Heyo) who are willing to go out and lie through their teeth for him. (See previous posts for substantiation.) Posting here to let nonBelievers know that other Christians work to expose Hovind, is therefore an excellent use of my time as a missionary.
137 November 13 2009 at 05:16:00
Comments: Why would God need evolution to make mankind?
138 November 13 2009 at 05:14:14
Name: Heyo (22.214.171.124)
Comments: I also wanted to point out that not all creationists are opposed to science. In fact a great many of them use it to prove the existence of God. It is a tired argument for an evolutionist to state that we are anti-science. It is just another of so many opinion based insults brought up by them.
139 November 13 2009 at 05:09:09
Comments: After reading your rules the first thing that popped into my head was that of anyone who posts here not a one follows these, and yes trebob that includes you. Out of the numerous pages you cannot say that you have followed these to a tee. So what I'm trying to say is that they are outright B.S. and hugely unnecessary. My second thought after reading these is that instead of an actual layout on how you think this should go down, it is an attack on anyone who disagrees with you. After arguing with and reading arguments of others you have I have seen that even if someone were to follow these your response is the same no matter what. I have seen people debate bringing up excellent points on both sides for and against evolution, but if someone is to disagree you take it as a personal attack on yourself, and lash out using insults. Anyone who continues you follow with ignoring them. It can be written out as a formula its so predictable. So after reading your "rules" or "guidelines" whatever you wanna call them I think it is pointless, and more of a accusation toward creationists than an actual attempt to produce a debate environment.
140 November 13 2009 at 04:44:58
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: A NEW LIE FROM JOHN HARRIS
Once again, John Harris has been caught in a lie. In his post of November 12 2009 at 23:51:12, he said,
*** Jimmy your following comments in your post dated November 07 2009 at 16:51:51amuses me:
(Quoting me, Jim Smith)
** 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.
(End of quote from Jim Smith)
**(Harris continues) 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?
(End of quote from Harris)
As Harris has been shown repeatedly (starting with my first reply to him, on 28 September 04 2009 at 02:00:15), this website covers Hovind's approval of war crimes at http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm.
By adding that **This site would not even exist if you (Jim) didn't believe in macroevolution?** , Harris shows that he his is STILL confused (for at least the second time now) as to whose website this is. (See also my post of 4 September 13 2009 at 23:37:43) Carl Marychurch created this website, for the reasons he gives at http://kent-hovind.com/intro.htm. I played no part in its creation--I contributed my own material to it (http://kent-hovind.com/christian/index.htm) some time later.
I'll also note that Harris has still registered no objection to Hovind's sentiments regarding Muslims.
Therefore, I'll just re-post my usual response to Harris's posts.
REGARDING THE POSTS OF JOHN HARRIS:
From Jim Smith, first posted 31 October 2009, revised 7 November 2009
(Substantiation for the following will be presented at the end of the post.)
In seven weeks of posting here, John Harris has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant scientific illiterate and serial liar, who has twice indicated that he has a right to make accusations without presenting any substantiation for them *until he�s ready*.
Harris has been told of Kent Hovind�s approval of war crimes against Muslims, and has never registered any objection to it. Instead, he has criticized us for "crucifying" Hovind by exposing him. Harris also cites Hovind (a known liar and incompetent) as a source, without apology.
At the same time, Harris insists upon *watertight*, *indisputable� evidence for an old Earth. As an example of what Harris means by those terms, consider what he believes is a reasonable objection to radiometric dating. That is, consider what he believes is a credible explanation of how rocks from a young Earth came to have isotope ratios that indicate those rocks are actually more than 4 billion years old.
Harris maintains that those ratios resulted from contamination during the Global Flood. He insists upon this while knowing that meteorites also date to 4 billion years ago, according to their ratios of those same isotopes.
When this disconnect was pointed out to him, he followed his usual pattern by triumphantly posting yet another link to a site filled with the speculations of incompetents. In this case, 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.
The above set of speculations (for more analysis, see trebob's link about asteroids, below) is the sort of lunacy that Harris considers a reasonable objection to the accuracy of radimetric dating. His insistence that Old Earthers must address such scenarios seriously is lunacy compounded, but it's typical of what we've heard from Harris.
It's also typical that Harris seemed to have made no effort to find and study any refutations of these speculation before trimphantly linking to them. At the same time, he accuses the rest of us of having our minds closed.
For the reasons given above, I will not give any reply to his future posts, other than by repeating this one.
Carl Marychurch�s summaries:
(1) November 02 2009 at 05:44:57 (The best short example); and
(2) October 28 2009 at 06:26:54
David�s summary: October 31 2009 at 10:51:25
Trebob�s detailed analyses: http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html
My posts: September 17 2009 at 20:08:21 and October 20 2009 at 18:39:24
John Harris, September 19 2009 at 02:30:19
(A good example of the sort of megalomaniacal drivel Harris has expected us to wade through in this discussion.)
<< 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>