81 March 16 2010 at 05:33:45
Comments: Im not anti-science. I am rather supportive of science. But science and evolution are quite different in many regard(depending once again how one defines evolution) The difference is the speculation of one species changing radically into another species. If it can be seen it can be proven. It cannot. First we must speculate, then we can perform science. Evolution is based solely on speculation, this is the beginning of science, but we see that time and time again results of proof have been inconclusive as to proof of or against evolution. It simply cannot be proven or disproven. That is why it remains theory and not law.
Please post once again your copy and pasted response I much enjoy ranting about such things.
I also enjoy rants regarding the dangers of big government, but that is for another time hahaha.
82 March 15 2010 at 18:20:32
Name: Jim Smith
Trebob long ago exposed the dishonesty and willful scientific illiteracy of the Anonymous Poster and his numerous sock puppets. I'm not going to waste any more time on him. Instead, I'll just use the anonymous poster's writings as an example of why Hovind supporters are dangerous.
Anyone who wants to know more about the Anonymous Poster may read http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/well-it-looks-like-we-have-objection-to.html.
Since the Anonymous Poster thinks so highly of fellow incompetent and serial liar John Harris, you might also like to read
83 March 15 2010 at 02:47:44
Comments: oh but I have reviewed and researched a hundred times over and over again searching for hard concrete evidence as to proof to evolution. Alas all my results pointed to zero concrete evidence, but massive amounts of speculation.
The thing to know is that first you have to define evolution. This is very difficult as we as humans and animals are constantly changing.Is that evolution? Well some say yes others say it goes further. That one species is developed from another. That one species can develop into an entirely new one through their definition of evolution. This is the evolution that cannot be proven, but rather is filled with speculation. We change of course. Were we once apes?.. That is what some would say, but no evidence can be proven to back up this statement. If I am wrong please provide concrete evidence of an ape changing into a human being through the process of evolution. This cannot be proven as it cannot be recreated in a controlled lab environment. Which is the exact definition of a law, while a theory can be defined as someone's guess as to how something may have occurred, but it cannot be proven or disproven.
Evolution has become increasingly popular as many who are not willing to do the research and back up claims with evidence find it an easy out to explain how the earth was created. Unfortunately for them their arguments always result in a "because this scientist says so". This is circular logic and fails to meet the criterion of science.
Cant wait to hear your side of the argument. ;)
84 March 14 2010 at 14:35:17
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hello BTW,
Since you and your numerous sock puppets have never shown any interest whatsoever in reviewing the evidence, you obviously do not care whether you and Hovind are liars and incompetents. Therefore, there is no point in taking this discussion up with you again.
85 March 14 2010 at 07:30:10
Occasionally I feel it necessary to use sock puppets. I mean if someone is ignoring an argument gotta get them to listen somehow. And it was harmless clearly. Isn't the only way to the truth to keep talking. If your right about evolution then why not continue to argue.
86 March 14 2010 at 07:25:47
Comments: hey Im back haha.miss me? The site was shut down before I had a chance to explain myself. but its history now right. the again you guys memorize like everything anybody says on this site right? just to fond some sot of contradiction.
Anyway here is the deal...
God cannot be proven with science. This is exactly how he wanted it. He wanted for us as humans to choose using the free will he granted us whether or not to follow him. Christianity is a faith based religion. You must have faith in God without seeing Him.
Evolution as well cannot be proven we can speculate as to the occurrence of certain findings, such as how old they estimate the earth to be and so on and so forth. But this provides no concrete evidence as to whether or not we evolved from another being. Nor will we ever know whether or not we have evolved from another being. It can never be proven or disproved. it is a lot like a religion only the difference is believing in Christ is an act of Faith, while believing in evolution is an act of ignorance. Truth be told you the choice comes down to you. Who do you follow. a perceived logic, or God. that is the system God designed, and that is the way it will stay until the end of days.
p.s. hope you didn't miss me too much ;)
87 February 23 2010 at 19:51:06
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hello Donna,
Since you do not wish to spend as much time reviewing the evidence as I will need to respond to your post, you apparently do not really care whether Hovind is a liar and incompetent or not, nor are you willing to make a good-faith effort to ensure that the statements you make in his defense are accurate. Therefore, there is no point in having this discussion.
88 February 23 2010 at 01:36:50
Comments: What a waste of cyberspace. Have you nothing better to do? It is so sad to see people cannibalized for their faith. I will pray for you!
89 February 10 2010 at 23:42:15
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Have You Come Here to Defend Hovind?
first posted by Jim Smith 5 June 2009
As a former scientist myself, I admit with shame that some prominent scientists are so biased against religion that they cannot read, accurately, an article entitled "Taking Science on Faith" (Footnote 1). I condemn that bias. I also acknowledge and condemn the prejudice and plain malice that many people have toward Fundamentalists in general, and toward poor rural fundamentalists in particular (Footnote 2).
The above having been said, the fact remains that Kent Hovind is an unrepentant liar, slanderer, hatemonger, and fraud, as well an a willfully ignorant incompetent. There is overwhelming evidence for this.
Hovind supporters who are unaware of this evidence will, of course, want to see it before defending him. The following is a brief list of readings and related questions to acquaint you with a small portion of the evidence. If you search for the indicated words, then answer the questions by copying and pasting, this process won't take more than 20 minutes. My responses to Hovind defenders typically take me considerably longer to write and post.
I regret that for that reason, I will give only the following reply if you don't answer all of the questions before defending him:
*****Since you do not wish to spend as much time reviewing the evidence as I will need to respond
*****to your post, you apparently do not really care whether Hovind is a liar and incompetent or
*****not, nor are you willing to make a good-faith effort to ensure that the statements you make in his
*****defense are accurate. Therefore, there is no point in having this discussion.
Thank you for your time.
P.S. By the way, and so you will know: Yes, I have seen Hovind's materials, and review one of his videos at http://kent-hovind.com/christian/rebuttal19th.htm. I have also read much of what is available at www.freehovind.com, as well as the appeal of his conviction. I assume that the appeal he filed presents the best-documented, most carefully-argued case he and his legal counsel could make against the government's conduct, as well as against his conviction and the sentence he received. Therefore, I have not taken the time to read anything else on those subjects.
READINGS AND RELATED QUESTIONS BEGIN
Reading 1 (from the Young Earth Creationist Organization "Creation Ministries International" (CMI), update of 2006) http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind
Question 1. There is a paragraph near the beginning that starts with the words **In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, **. Please search for it, then copy and paste the rest of the paragraph in your post.
Question 2. CMI states that it is not able to **recommend Hovind's material or trust his discernment in many areas, frankly.** What action of Hovind's does CMI give as the reason for this decision?
Question 3. Please find the sentence that contains **a form of false witness **. Copy and paste the full sentence, plus the one that follows.
Question 4. Please find the paragraph that begins **[CMI]: This seems an easy way**. Copy and paste the last full sentence of the paragraph.
Question 5. Please find the sentence Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed Copy and paste the full paragraph shortly afterward that begins **[CMI]: The repeated use of this approach**.
Question 6. Please copy and paste the second sentence of the paragraph that begins**[CMI]: A worthy cause, and one we should all be engaged in**
Reading 2. (Regarding Iraq and the Philippines, http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm
Please search the page for the word "pig". Name at least one war crime that Hovind either approves of or advocates, according to the paragraphs that contain that word.
END OF READINGS AND QUESTIONS
1. We can see some scientists' biases in their responses to Paul Davies' 2007 article "Taking Science on Faith". It's best to read Davies' reply first (http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html#davies), then his article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davies07/davies07_index.html), and finally the scientists' responses (http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html).
2. Please see "One Nation under Elvis: An Environmentalism for Us All" (http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2845).
90 February 03 2010 at 06:56:08
Comments: Don't you have anything beter to do?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>