Home > FreeHovind > Content > General > Discussion: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
216 Comments - 20209 Views
Evolutionists want to waist your time to keep you from God's will.
Submitted By ronnie(l.a.) on 10/01/11
FreeHovind, ronnie(l.a.), General 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

(Watch and read below how these athiests and creation science haters do NOT have the ability to restrain themselves from getting the last word.) The quotes below are so true when it comes to Bible haters, because they are so afraid of the rapid growth of Christianity the only way to try and stop it is to waist your time.

The quotes below are from the following sites: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm

"2. Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

» Reply to Discussion (Too Many Replies for Fancy Display) 216 Replies
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/01/11 - 17:26 GMT
I noticed when I asked Sci Borg (now Ronnies evil twin/former Ben the rationalist) that since he says "science doesn't 'prove' anything" when I asked him does science prove that the world is billions of years old or does it prove that we come from animals he left and became ronnies evil twin. I would still like an answer from you Ben before you take your bi-polar medication.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 minute - 1v
Posted 2010/01/11 - 18:02 GMT
Ronnie,

Why is it that EVERYONE on here is supposed to answer your questions yet you fail to answer anyones. I have repeatedly asked you several questions that you have failed to respond to or..when you respond...i show EVIDENCE or DATA that kicks shows you are demostrably wrong. Instead of staying on topic...you change subjects..make other unfounded acusations. This is a perfect example of what you do.

In your original "good reason's not to debate evolutionists" thread. I just went back and reviewed this entire thread. You were getting your ass handed to you so you changed topics to:
1) Global warming
2) Slockpuppets
3) Namecalling
4) Satin Worshipers
5) some movie called The Haunting
6) Calling someone a pedophile
7) micro vs. macro evolution
8) intellegent design
9) sockpuppets
10)) archeology only finding evidence of man 5500 years ago.
11) radiometric dating is a lie (just after he sited a date given that supported his claim)
12) NOW back to evolutionists wasting peoples time
13) BACK to global warming
14) more sockpuppets
15) BACK to micro vs. macro evolution
16) Civil Rights
17) Economic Policy of democrat v. republicans.
18) BAck to civil rights
19) BACK to Economic policy

Now, on each of these times Ronnie was having those unfortunate "facts" or "data" that got in his way. More specifically, someone would ask him a question he refused to answer. Instead of answering...ronnie merely changed the subject...hoping nobody would notice. Ronnie, EVERYBODY noticed.

I think this may be a new strategy...when ronnie is getting his ass handed to him in a thread....he just starts a new thread under the same name and all is whiped clean. Huh Ronnie??
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/01/11 - 21:36 GMT
No I started the new thread because the old one had so many replys that it started to take a long time to load.

Now back to the question you checked out on and then we'll go back to the others. If science doesn't prove anything like you said then why at the same time do you say science proves that the earth is millions of years old or that we come from animals or 'monkey like creatures' like your favorite creationist bigdog says?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/01/11 - 22:58 GMT
I noticed when I asked Sci Borg (now Ronnies evil twin/former Ben the rationalist)
 
You know what's truly pathetic, ronnie? In one post, I provided more evidence that you are a sock-puppet of bigdog than you have of your claim - and I wasn't even being serious!
 
that since he says "science doesn't 'prove' anything" when I asked him does science prove that the world is billions of years old or does it prove that we come from animals
 
...which demonstrated that you utterly missed the point about the implications of the word "proof" in the scientific context. Congratulations, that level of wilful ignorance must take some real commitment.
 
he left and became ronnies evil twin
 
There you have it, folks - the "thought" process of a creationist. Illuminating, no?
 
I would still like an answer from you Ben before you take your bi-polar medication.
 
Awww, looks like I made ronnie angry! Little fella sure is sensitive, isn't he?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/01/11 - 23:01 GMT
You were getting your ass handed to you so you changed topics to:
1) Global warming
2) Slockpuppets
3) Namecalling
4) Satin Worshipers
5) some movie called The Haunting
6) Calling someone a pedophile
7) micro vs. macro evolution
8) intellegent design
9) sockpuppets
10)) archeology only finding evidence of man 5500 years ago.
11) radiometric dating is a lie (just after he sited a date given that supported his claim)
12) NOW back to evolutionists wasting peoples time
13) BACK to global warming
14) more sockpuppets
15) BACK to micro vs. macro evolution
16) Civil Rights
17) Economic Policy of democrat v. republicans.
18) BAck to civil rights
19) BACK to Economic policy
 
Buwahaha! That list is brilliant! It clearly shows that ronnie is either frantically throwing out one red herring after another, to try to cover up his constant defeats - or he's just in serious need of a Ritallin prescription.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/01/11 - 23:12 GMT
No I started the new thread because the old one had so many replys that it started to take a long time to load.
 
Yes, and you know why? Because you're apparently incapable of sticking to one topic for more than two or three posts. Just print out that thread and give it to a doctor - instant ADHD diagnosis.
 
Now back to the question you checked out on and then we'll go back to the others.
 
*cough*bullshit*cough*
 
If science doesn't prove anything like you said then why at the same time do you say science proves that the earth is millions of years old or that we come from animals or 'monkey like creatures' like your favorite creationist bigdog says?
 
Really, Ronnie? That's the best you can do - semantic nitpicking? First of all, provide a link to a single post where I've said "science proves that the earth is millions[sic] of years old/we came from animals/or 'monkey-like creatures.'" (waiting...)
 
If you had clue-one about science, you would know that ALL theories are provisional - no matter how well-supported they are (to paraphrase Stephen Hawking). Or, to put it in words that even you might be able to grasp:
 
"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion" -John Stuart Mills
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 1:11 GMT
"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion" -John Stuart Mills

That really is brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.
And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating there is never again any real confidence in the world being millions of years old.

Thanks homie. I'm finally done. Have fun with yourself here. Just keep watching posts every five minutes like you do jus in case I come back. You really strengthened my faith today.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 minute - 1v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 1:24 GMT
"brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.
And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating there is never again any real confidence in the world being millions of years old."

Hummmmm something is missing here.....what could it be...oh yeah....EVIDENCE supporting your post.
Quick Ronnie..run over to where all scientists go for quick, reliable scientifice info...The Family Alliance Foundation...or The 700 Club.com. Go fetch us sum real facts Ronnie. (DON'T FORGET TO MAKE A NEW SCREEN NAME)

Or would you rather talk about Civil Rights a THIRD time.

I am fairly new here but i find it amazing that Ronnie apparently has no shame whatsoever regarding his lack of knowledge on such a wide spectrum of topics.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 10:45 GMT
"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion" -John Stuart Mills

That really is brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.
 
Wow, congratulations - you've just refuted a claim that no one makes. I'd describe that as "tilting at windmills," but I doubt you'd get the reference.
 
And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating there is never again any real confidence in the world being millions of years old.
 
For once, I agree with you: the world almost certainly isn't millions of years old. Try billions. Is that why you prefer creationism? Because you can't grasp time scales larger than a few thousand years?
 
But thanks for demonstrating that you are unable to grasp the concept of "margin of error" - or understand how falsifiability works.
 
Thanks homie. I'm finally done. Have fun with yourself here.
 
Hey look, ronnie's taking his ball and going home. Maybe he wants to spend more time with his family (and accusing them of pedophilia).
 
Just keep watching posts every five minutes like you do jus in case I come back.
 
Don't worry, ronnie - we know you'll be back. You just can't resist.
 
You really strengthened my faith today.
 
Anyone else have a mental image of ronnie furiously pounding out that post, spittle flying while he screams at his monitor?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 10:47 GMT
I am fairly new here but i find it amazing that Ronnie apparently has no shame whatsoever regarding his lack of knowledge on such a wide spectrum of topics.
 
Shame? Hell, I think he takes pride in his ignorance.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 13:58 GMT
Wrong. Try again.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 minute - 1v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 15:17 GMT
"Wrong. Try again."

Good for you ronnie. You do NOT take pride in your ignorance. Well done young lad. Next step is getting yourself an education. Now, this may mean you cannot go to the same creationist websites for ALL your information. For example, i don't think the disovery institute is the leading expert on oh....let's say...labor statistics. Additionally, i don't think that The Family Alliance Coalition is the best place to find information on scientific research.
First Step- Define what your issue is and go to a leading authority on THAT issue. (Note: Pat Robertson is NOT a leading autority on anything..except ripping people off. Kent Hovind is NOT a leading authority on any subject...except meal time for D Block)
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 18:44 GMT
Wrong. Try again.
 
Hmmm... judging by the timestamp, this was posted less than 12 hours after your "I'm taking my ball and going home" post.
 
So, wow! You almost managed to last half a day!
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 20:03 GMT
¨The quotes below are from the following sites: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm¨
 
who copy pasted that from creationwiki...
did you really think we wouldn´t notice.
 
oh and btw, it is YOU who are attempting to lead us into endless debate because you consistantly FAIL at backing up your claims, correcting your position and researching your sources.
on top of that, when you get your ass handed to you, you start TROLLING.
 
do you think your fellow creationists take you serious?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 20:08 GMT
¨I noticed when I asked Sci Borg (now Ronnies evil twin/former Ben the rationalist) that since he says "science doesn't 'prove' anything"¨
 
first of all another accusation og sockpuppets.
 
second of all, science doesn´t offer the 100% proof of mathemetics or logic.
we´ve already explained this to you, a lot.
 
¨I would still like an answer from you Ben before you take your bi-polar medication.¨
 
...even in THIS insult you fail.
what you are thinking of is ¨Dissociative identity disorder¨
NOT BIPOLAR.
 
and i actually educated meself on the matter because at one time i thought i might have been bipolar.
 
¨that we come from animals he left and became ronnies evil twin.¨
 
EUCARYOTES.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 20:12 GMT
¨{No I started the new thread because the old one had so many replys that it started to take a long time to load. ¨
 
.....what kind of internet do you have?
or better yet, what kind of patience do you have if you cannot even w8 for a page to load????
 
¨we come from animals or 'monkey like creatures¨
 
EUCARTYOTES>ANIMALIA>AMNIOTES>MAMMALIA>PRIMATES>HOMONODIA>HOMO SAPIENS.
 
is it THAT hard to grasp?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 20:19 GMT
¨That really is brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.¨
 
NO, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DISTINCT LAYERS.
 
you can´t possibly be the dense right?

¨And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating¨
 
now WHY where those dates of?
oooh right, because either the methodology wasn´t followed correctly or the dating was impossible (C14 dating fossils).
 
¨Thanks homie. I'm finally done. Have fun with yourself here. Just keep watching posts every five minutes like you do jus in case I come back. You really strengthened my faith today.:¨
 
that� it.
you, get on skype.
let see how long your faith holds against a book on celluliar moleculair chemistry, and someone who actually takes the time to think.
 
or are you that much of a coward that you will ignore my skype invitation?
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 minute - 1v
Posted 2010/01/12 - 20:32 GMT
¨That really is brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.¨
and
¨And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating¨

Ronnie, do you find it odd that when presented with a chance to present actual EVIDENCE of these alleged gaps/problems with science, the young earth creationists failed to present any such evidence of gaps or problems. They did not present one witness to refute prior EXPERT testimony regarding geologic column formation and radiometric dating.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

These young earth creationists use terms and arguments created by The Discovery Institute. However, when the Discovery Institute was asked to back up these arguments they....they chose to not take the stand.
Ronnie, i ask you...can you tell me why these people would refuse to present their evidence of scientific gaps/problems UNDER OATH???? (Any chance the lil guy is gonna answer this?)
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 hour - 41v
Posted 2010/01/16 - 23:22 GMT
And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years
in radio metric dating and C-14 dating there is never again any real
confidence in the world being millions of years old.
 
Uh, first of all, the Earth is approximately 4.6 Billion years old. Secondly, if Radiometric and C-14 dating are off by so many millions of years, how do you know they were off?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/03/26 - 3:33 GMT
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/03/26 - 12:39 GMT
planetiods beyond neptune.
lots of em.
that and the lack of thermal enery would make most of em unnoticable and solid.
so it probably won't be that much of a gass cloud after 4.5 billion years.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/03/26 - 21:36 GMT
A Hovind video? Damn, ronnie, you really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.
 
The funniest part is when he says "to prove that something doesn't exist, wouldn't I haven't to be everywhere at once?" All he's doing is cherry-picking one badly-phrased statement, and focusing entirely on that.
 
It's true that you can't prove (from the standpoint of logic) that the Oort cloud *doesn't* exist - but you COULD however prove that (E.g.) there is just empty space where the Oort cloud is supposed to exist. Better get started working on that Creationist Space Program, ronnie!
 
Notice that Hovind doesn't answer, or even acknowledge, any of the theoretical or research data (E.g. the inferences drawn from the orbits of long-period comets).
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/03/27 - 6:09 GMT
"Unfortunately, since the individual comets are so small and at such large distances, we have no direct evidence about the Oort Cloud." from - http://nineplanets.org/kboc.html

"The Oort Cloud in brief is an hypothesized area in space" "There has been no definate evidence that the cloud exists" So what you are saying is that this ...
http://www.universeguide.com/OortCloud.php

all i'm saying is that their is no hard evidence for the "Oort Cloud" as these scientists admit. there is only good speculation. so if there is no hard evidnence for the oort cloud there is less evidence thatt new comets are being formed by the oort cloud.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/03/27 - 14:42 GMT
"all i'm saying is that their is no hard evidence for the "Oort Cloud" as these scientists admit."
 
well your sources look really scientific....not
not only that, you skipped the part where the evidence was provided to support the hypothesis.
namely the orbit of long period comets and planetiod beyond neptune.
 
"so if there is no hard evidnence for the oort cloud there is less evidence thatt new comets are being formed by the oort cloud."
 
technically they aren't formed. they originate.
oh, and you might want to read the rest of what the site has to say on big bang and such. you might actuallly cure your ignorance on the subject.
although there are much better sources to look that up...
 
ffs look at what these people write.
"What are the Ingredients of Life ?
On Earth, the main ingredients for life is Oxygen ( for animals ) and Carbon Dioxide ( for plants ), it should not be assumed that this is the case for life on other planets. Other planet's inhabitents might survive on Nitrogen or Hydrogen. An alien life form may well find that our planet is toxic as we would theirs. On our planet, there have been places discovered where the environment is toxic to us but life has existed. There is a cave in Romania deep underground where sunlight can not enter yet there is life. Whilst all life on earth with the exception of a few spieces ( mainly simple lifeforms ) requires a male and female of a spieces to reproduce. It should not be taken as though an alien race will have the same number of genders. They might have one, two, three or more different genders.
Humans are Aliens to Earth ?
There is a growing belief that we, human are aliens to this planet. It is based on the discovery that comets could contain amino acids, the building blocks of life. It has been proved that amino acids can survive high impact collisions whilst onboard such objects. The experiment was carried out by NASA in America. If we arrived here by hitch-hiking then there's every bit a possibility that life like here on Earth exists elsewhere. The European Space Agency have begun a mission named the Rosetta project to investigate whether amino acids are found on comets. The comet that carried us here could have split into two during its journey through space. The other part would've landed on another planet therefore sprouting similiar life. At the beginning, the lifeforms on our both planets would be the same but environmental conditions would cause both spieces to change in appearance. There are those who believe that we originated totally on Earth with no help from elsewhere. Maybe human amino acids arrived on the comet/meteor that killed off the dinosaurs. The suspected meteor crashed into the Mexican Gulf and as it hit the sea, our amino acids were washed off. Over the years the amino acids grew and developed into humans. Other suggestions are that we were seeded here by aliens from other worlds who wanted to preserve their own kind. If we were seeded here by aliens why have they not left any technology behind for us to use ? Why did they put us so far away from anywhere else ? Why haven't they come back to see us ?
"
if that isn't half assed BS, i don't know what is.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/03/27 - 23:30 GMT
"namely the orbit of long period comets and planetiod beyond neptune."

thats still not hard evidence for the Oort cloud. they are not trying to contradict themselves. they already said there is no hard evidence.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/03/28 - 11:26 GMT
"
thats still not hard evidence for the Oort cloud. they are not trying to contradict themselves. they already said there is no hard evidence."
 
i'd say a multitude of large objects beyond our last gas giant wouldn't make the existence of a uber asteriod belt far beyond the sun as "unlikely".
 
but regardless of that. the only reason you seek to dismiss it becaus it doesn't jive with your personal creation fantasy.
now i wouldn't really call that good grounds for dismissal of ANYTHING.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/03/29 - 12:04 GMT
all i'm saying is that their is no hard evidence for the "Oort Cloud" as these scientists admit. there is only good speculation. so if there is no hard evidnence for the oort cloud there is less evidence thatt new comets are being formed by the oort cloud.
 
Yes, as should be obvious from the fact that the mentions of Oort cloud usually have the word "hypothesis" in the same sentence.
 
Of course, to borrow a phrase that Christian apologists are fond of, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And, in fact, there is plenty of indirect evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud - by extrapolating from the orbits of long-period comets, it's obvious that most of them originate somewhere around 50,000 to 100,000 AU from the Sun. What alternate explanation do you propose?
 
And last, even if it's someday discovered that the Oort cloud doesn't exist, that doesn't even come close to validating Young-Earth Creationism or even just the specific claim regarding comets.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/02 - 2:39 GMT
thanks for clearing that up. atleast finally someone admits that there is no hard evidence for some Oort cloud.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/02 - 10:50 GMT
"there is no hard evidence for some Oort cloud."
 
...this is quite substantial evidence. you're just desperate to find a loop hole.
because:
where else do you propose these long period comets come from?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/04 - 7:15 GMT
they were created at the beginning of creation less than 10,000 years ago. comets maximum life span is 10,000 years. there is no hard evidence of anymore being created.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/04 - 11:28 GMT
"comets maximum life span is 10,000 years."
 
which is a lie.
because comets only start to decay when they get within a certain range of the sun, and of course you still have gravitational and electrostatical lumping...
 
"they were created at the beginning of creation less than 10,000 years ago."
 
which means you have no alternative explination explaining the data....gr8.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/05 - 16:10 GMT
"because comets only start to decay when they get within a certain range of the sun, and of course you still have gravitational and electrostatical lumping"

and HARD evidence that they can last longer is...?

After 500 or so passes near the Sun (or any other gas giant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant) off most of a comet's ice and gas is lost leaving a rocky object very much like an asteroid in appearance. (Perhaps half of the near-Earth asteroids may be "dead" comets.) A comet whose orbit takes it near the Sun is also likely to either impact one of the planets or the Sun or to be ejected out of the solar system by a close encounter (esp. with Jupiter).

http://www.nineplanets.org/comets.html
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/05 - 16:59 GMT
"
and HARD evidence that they can last longer is...?"
 
the fact that they don't decay beyond a certain point.
 
or did you htink comets always had tails?
 
in order to strip material from the gravitational pull of the rest of the comet, you require thermal energy (radiation or drag)....seeing as space is mosly a vacuum, the main deterioration fcomes from thermal input from radiation, which is reduces as you get fursther away form the source (sun).
 
of course there are also the orbit calculations, which give figues form hundreds to tens of thousands of years..
EG:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Hyakutake
 
"fter 500 or so passes near the Sun (or any other gas giant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant) off most of a comet's ice and gas is lost leaving a rocky object very much like an asteroid in appearance. (Perhaps half of the near-Earth asteroids may be "dead" comets.) A comet whose orbit takes it near the Sun is also likely to either impact one of the planets or the Sun or to be ejected out of the solar system by a close encounter (esp. with Jupiter)."
 
which proves what?
you realize this referres to short period asteriods right? and NOT long period comets. not only that, it actually says in that part that other celestial bodies influence comets so that they can have much longer orbits (increasing their ages).
 
way to shoot yourself in the foot by copy pastign somehting you didn't understand.
 
"http://www.nineplanets.org/comets.html"
which isn't that good of a source to begin with and on top of that it's QUITE outdated:
 
"last updated: 2003 May 1"
 
.....and you're attempt at argument fails again....as usual
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/05 - 22:52 GMT
sorry homie its speculation. its guessing like guessing that we come from animals. how do you date a comet? carbon dating? they don't know how old they are.

i would be happy to see evidence of a comet forming today. real evidence. not some speculative guess.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/06 - 1:24 GMT
"sorry homie its speculation."
 
ina way yes. every hypothesis and every theory is ina  way speculation, however it's speculation with good reasoning (evidence) behind it.
 
" its guessing like guessing that we come from animals."
 
you ARE an animal, and the evidence that our species and has a closes living ancestor with chimps is DEMONSTRABLE.
 
"how do you date a comet?"
 
that would be emission spectroscopy for isotopes.
but to calculate orbit length is something else entirely.
 
"carbon dating?"
 
there are plenty of other decays to measure besides carbon you know, get of your little parade horse.
 
" they don't know how old they are."
 
as in the absolute way of knowing, no, just like we don't KNOW there are electrons.
but in the scientific way of saying witha  high degree of certainty, yes. comets and asteriods have been dated, and their ages line up with the formation of our solar system.
 
"
i would be happy to see evidence of a comet forming today."
 
look at saturns rings. that's probably the easiest example of electrostatic and gravitation lumping to understand. comets nowadays don't really grow because most of the material has been usurped over the billions of years our solarsystem has existed.
 
"not some speculative guess."
 
looking at your "requirements" for evidence, your probably won't accept anything besides scripture, and you certainly wouldn't like, lets say.... NMR data since that is also based on those kinds of "speculation".
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/06 - 4:44 GMT
"nowadays don't really grow because most of the material has been usurped over the billions of years our solarsystem has existed." again...nice assumptions but no real evidence. but when i logically assume God made all creatures similar not born from one animal u say thats wrong. double standard because you don't like it. the fate of a comet:

Jupiter family comets (JFC) and long period comets (LPC) (see "Orbital characteristics", above) appear to follow very different fading laws. The JFCs are active over a lifetime of about 10,000 years or ~1,000 revolutions while the LPCs disappear much faster. Only 10% of the LPCs survive more than 50 passages to small perihelion, while only 1% of them survive more than 2,000 passages.[35] Eventually most of the volatile material contained in a comet nucleus evaporates away, and the comet becomes a small, dark, inert lump of rock or rubble that can resemble an asteroid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Fate_of_comets

thats what it comes down to. We don't have any real evidence of new comets being formed and we know the average life spans. about10 to 12 thousand years.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/06 - 10:19 GMT
"about10 to 12 thousand years.'
 
no, the life span is dependent on the orbital time.
EG: 1000 passages of 1000 years makes a 1 000 000 year life times.
 
you've done absolutely nothing to support the claim that LPC's last only 12 000 years.
way to again quote something that doesn't support your argument at all.
 
and besides that, you IGNORED the axample of saturns rings, AND the explination that we probably won't see any comets form because most of the material has already been usurped over the course of time in this solarsystem.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/07 - 1:52 GMT
"1000 passages of 1000 years makes a 1 000 000 year life times.."

lets say thats true. that still means that the oldest comet should have burned out...lets see...about over 4 billion years ago since there is no REAL evidence of replenishment.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/07 - 10:55 GMT
"lets say thats true. that still means that the oldest comet should have burned out...lets see...about over 4 billion years ago"
 
....you failed to grasp that the orbit could be longer?
 
"since there is no REAL evidence of replenishment."
 
and yet new ones keep appearing from beyond neptune....
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/08 - 5:34 GMT
and yet new ones keep appearing from beyond neptune....

What kind of evidence is that? you see them for the first time so that means they were just created? gimee a break.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/08 - 12:17 GMT
"you see them for the first time so that means they were just created?"
 
how did you figure that?
are you saying god could be shitting out comets all the time?
 
"What kind of evidence is that?"
 
lets see....we are constantly seeign new comets appear and dissapear beyound our view....then it would be quite reasonable to assume that there are many out  there we aren't seeing. and then you factor in the garitational field of the sun...and you get a cloud...
 
woow wasn't that simple?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/04/08 - 15:24 GMT
sorry homie its speculation.
 
"homie"? Ooooh look, ronnie da gangsta hangin' wit his boy bigdawg!
 
its guessing like guessing that we come from animals.
 
You didn't come from animals? So were your parents mineral, or vegetable?
 
how do you date a comet?
 
Very carefully.
 
i would be happy to see evidence of a comet forming today.
 
Why today? Why not, oh say... 16 years ago? There's evidence of comet formation in the Kuiper belt, thanks to Hubble, as far back as 1994.
 
 
real evidence. not some speculative guess.
 
Okay, ronnie, I'll bite: what exactly would you accept as "real evidence"? Be specific, if you're capable of it.
 
Of course, being vague and non-specific means you can you just backpedal and dismiss any evidence with "that's not what I mean by 'real evidence'".
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/08 - 21:10 GMT
something like haleys comet being formed and shooting off. that's the kind of evidence that i would like to see.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/08 - 22:35 GMT
"something like haleys comet being formed and shooting off."
 
shooting off....somets don't actually shoot of you know...
that's just the way we describe the expulsion of thermally excited gas from a comet when it get's into a certain range....
 
and again. almost aal the matter withing that range has already been usurped by other bodies (asteriods, comets, planets) so there is nothing left to form.

"that's the kind of evidence that i would like to see."
 
look at saturns rings. perfect example of constant creation and degeneration of small rocky masses in a disc of matter.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/09 - 3:26 GMT
"and again. almost aal the matter withing that range has already been usurped by other bodies (asteriods, comets, planets) so there is nothing left to form."

so no real evidence of new comets? thank you
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/04/10 - 14:54 GMT
so no real evidence of new comets?
 
Sure, if you just completely ignore the frequent observation of new comets.
 
thank you
 
What, for "admitting" that the formation of comets isn't understood with 100% certainty? If that's some kind of revelation to you, then you might want to look up the definition of the word "hypothesis" .
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/12 - 4:48 GMT
"Sure, if you just completely ignore the frequent observation of new comets."
 
still waiting for you to back up that claim with hard evidence of new comets.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/12 - 5:49 GMT
"still waiting for you to back up that claim with hard evidence of new comets."
 
 
 
 
( looking at only the top of the search list for "new comets oort" and in the last 2 years)
 
need i go on?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/12 - 6:14 GMT
can't u just put the main points up instead of making me go through all that? i'd appreciate it.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/12 - 16:46 GMT
¨can't u just put the main points up instead of making me go through all that?¨
 
what main points?
you wanted observations of new comets. you got this for starters.
you wanted evidence for the oort cloud, you got it.
you wanted actual science done with this hypothesis, you got it.
 
ffs man, just reading the abstracts should be enough....or a good look through google scholar. it´s not that hard. I have to do stuff like this weekly. and i manage no problem.

EDUCATE YOURSELF
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/18 - 22:24 GMT
ok. i read them. now what part of any of what you posted convinces u of HARD evidence for the "Oort cloud" or new comets being created? all i got out of it is that they have great models of the oort cloud. a good model of wha they believe is not real evidence. please tell me what you found in here that convinced you that there is HARD EVIDENCE>
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/18 - 23:17 GMT
"a good model of wha they believe is not real evidence."
 
....they have a model that accurately explains the data...that is the evidence.
 
by your reasoning, electrons don't exist either.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/18 - 23:33 GMT
you call a model of belief evidence? now your just being totally ignorant. please...bring some real PROOF.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/18 - 23:45 GMT
"you call a model of belief evidence?"
 
relativity, atoms, electrons.
all models.
 
and they all work to an extremely high degree.
 
will you dismiss those too?
 
"now your just being totally ignorant."
 
no, you just have no idea how science works. this a model that accurately explains data.
why not use it then?
what other model do you have?
 
you have nothing but" goddunnit".
and all you have to back that up is indoctrination and biblethumping.
 
which won't convince anyone in a field of science, let alone astronomy.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/19 - 6:29 GMT
i suppose if someone shows u a model of a ufo you'll take that as proof?

they have a model of how it woks, but no evidence of the real thing.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/19 - 18:59 GMT
"i suppose if someone shows u a model of a ufo you'll take that as proof?"
 
...you understand that there are other models to explain UFO's besides aliens right?
 
"they have a model of how it woks, but no evidence of the real thing."
the model is what would happen if there were the real thing.
 
just like how atoms were thought up.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/21 - 23:54 GMT
so now u believe in ufo?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/22 - 0:27 GMT
"so now u believe in ufo?"
 
HOW on earth, did you figure that?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/04/24 - 22:19 GMT
they have a model of how it woks, but no evidence of the real thing.
 
No evidence? So where exactly do you think that theoretical models come from, ronnie? Do you think that scientists just pop down to the hobby store and pick up a theoretical model kit to assemble?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/04/24 - 22:33 GMT
so now u believe in ufo?
 
Do you have any clue how ridiculous that statement looks?
 
We can only assume that you, ronnie, take the opposite position and believe that all flying objects are, in fact, identified.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/25 - 4:12 GMT
all i asked for was hard evidence. not what looks like hard evidence.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/25 - 11:23 GMT
"all i asked for was hard evidence. not what looks like hard evidence."
 
more scientific illitaracy.gr8..
if you have a working hypothesis, then what is the problem?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/26 - 18:18 GMT
u need facts to back up your hypothesis. read any scientific paper that claims to have evidence for new comets being fomed and tell me what part of it is hard proof.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/27 - 9:47 GMT
"u need facts to back up your hypothesis."
 
if the hypothesis isn't backed up by fact, it ISN'T WORKING.
the oort cloud is a WORKING hypothesis.
 
"read any scientific paper that claims to have evidence for new comets being fomed and tell me what part of it is hard proof.'
 
most oortcloud related papers don't say new ones are being formed, as in formed from material. they discuss the observation of new bodies FROM the cloud it self. these comets already exist.
 
if you want to see larger bodies form, the you need to localize a dustdisc first...and a good example of that is saterun, where material is constantly forming and beign broken down.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/28 - 20:35 GMT
"the oort cloud is a WORKING hypothesis."

PROOF? Still waiting.

"most oortcloud related papers don't say new ones are being formed, as in formed from material."

So they magically appear?

"they discuss the observation of new bodies FROM the cloud it self."

which we're still waiting for proof of.

"these comets already exist."

wait...they're being formed (magically from a cloud) but they already exist? i don't know what type of cloud you're in man but i'd still like to see some proof.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/29 - 11:42 GMT
"So they magically appear?"
 
no, they pass into out view.
remember, we only have so many eyes, and you need a certain amount of light to see them.
 
"which we're still waiting for proof of."
 
the irony here is that YOU are saying they magically appear.
these comets are coming form somewhere.A large cloud of smaller bodies left over from the accretion disc, is NOT and extremely unlikely thing.
 
"which we're still waiting for proof of."
 
NO YOU JACKASS! try and get this through your head.
they mearly appear form the disc. THEY WHERE ALREADY FORMED.
of course that doesn't mean that comets can't form in the oort cloud...
 
no quit arguing against your strawman.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/29 - 20:42 GMT
all these claims sound really impressive. but now if you will just give me some hard evidence i might believe u.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/29 - 21:48 GMT
"all these claims sound really impressive. but now if you will just give me some hard evidence i might believe u."
 
repeating your incapability to understand what would constitute as evidence for the hyopothesis, or the actual content of the hypothesis, is NOT a form of argument.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/04/30 - 0:03 GMT
and repeating a bunch of scientific words does not impress me. what out of everything that you have wrote is real proof? go back and read everything. all the research shows is how they believe it works. nothing factual.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/04/30 - 11:15 GMT
"what out of everything that you have wrote is real proof?"
 
" all the research shows is how they believe it works."
 
for the last time.
if we have a working hypothesis, one that explains the data.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
we know from stellar formation that the accretion disc was there, we see rocky bodies beyond pluto's orbit. how unreasonable is it to assume a cloud of small rocky bodies byond pluto's orbit (where we can barely see them), left over after the accretion dics.
and THE come all these new comets we see who's orbit we calculate and find out that they pass the sun extremely rarely, but are still in orbit.
 
and for the record.
comets don't NEED to be "formed" there. you brought up that entire issue that that "comets have to be formed there" because you thought: "they don't last 10 000 years".
But that is not true when it comes to LPC's (which presumibly come form from the oort cloud, which is what the entire model is about), or any LPC's caputured in a shorter orbit.
those can easily be millions of years old because comets DO NOT STATISTICALLY DETERIORATE byond a certain distance form the sun.
 
now get this through your skull and stop arguing against your strawman.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/05/02 - 18:31 GMT
well i think this forum really has become a waste of time now. its not posted in free hovind any more so most people won't find it. so i'm only left with arguing with 365.

i pray for u 365. i hope u open your heart to Christ one day.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/02 - 20:07 GMT
"so i'm only left with arguing with 365. "
 
you and all the lurkers.
 
"i hope u open your heart to Christ one day."
 
ehm...isn't jezus suppose to come into my life? by revealing himself to me?
how am i suppose to belive without reason?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 87v
Posted 2010/05/02 - 23:47 GMT
"...Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced."
 
I completely agree, even when evidence is scientifically debunked, most evolutionsist activists will continue arguing the same point - I can only conclude that this must be done out of some sense of vulnerability, so they huddle tighter together in the 'safe haven' that is their worldview, not necessarily the truth.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/05/03 - 0:04 GMT
"I completely agree, even when evidence is scientifically debunked..."
- Oh how can i be so stupid? :O How can i not see all my evidence getting debunked by real scientists?

... wait a minute. That doesn't sound right. How about you give us an example? Cuz i have no idea what you're talking about to be honest.

"...most evolutionsist activists will continue arguing the same point"
- Maybe because you fail to get the point? Ever thought about that?

"I can only conclude that this must be done out of some sense of vulnerability, so they huddle tighter together in the 'safe haven' that is their worldview, not necessarily the truth."
- Isn't projection funny? You do know making baseless claimes without even giving a simple example of where it occured is kinda... well, useless.

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/03 - 5:26 GMT
"I completely agree, even when evidence is scientifically debunked,"
 
sooooo, evidence for ToE's explanatory power have been debunked ey?
would you please go on and list some of that debunked evidence?
and remeber ellman and i pretty much use it every day, so we know what what what be needed to "debunk" ToE.
 
this is gonna be good...
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 87v
Posted 2010/05/03 - 18:44 GMT
Well now, I'm by no means a scientist or PhD of any kind, but it doesn't take such a person to realise ToE has some serious flaws.
Admittedly, Hovind's research scholared me greatly in this regard, since I used to believe (thanks to what I now know are lies in the textbooks) that God must've used evolution as a means of creation.
 
When was the last time you watched his seminars?..
I agree with Hovind that there is evidence for so-called micro-evolution/ variation, but the other forms are purely religious. Hence, just to make it clear, I believe for the most part that evolution is a religion.
 
The idea surely, is to question this so-called science of evolution in terms of wether or not it is observable and testable - as obtained and tested through scientific method.
Is there any scientific proof for evolution?
If not, it cannot pose itself as science and shouldn't be tax-supported.
 
Now, for example, if I can clearly observe petrified trees running through several different layers of rock, each layer supposedly thousands of years old according to ToE, then science itself has turned the idea of the geologic column and carbon dating on its head. And creationists know  that's only the tip of the iceberg.
 
It's strange to me that many evolutionists have a keen interest in trying to prove the creationists wrong, yet we don't call Christianity 'scientific'.
It's about faith, and if the world shows evidence that supports the creationist theory, we get that warm fuzzy feeling.
Evolutionists are the one's who should be worried about the proof, unless of course you can admit that it takes a whoooole lot of faith to BELIEVE that ToE is actually akin to science.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/03 - 19:21 GMT
"but it doesn't take such a person to realise ToE has some serious flaws."
 
oh, but it DOES.
and don't take this in any arrogant way. but it's simply the case on complex matters. you are much to poorly educated to understand evolution in the way that lets say...a paleontologist, or a molecular biolgist can. it's THESE people who formulated and added on to ToE. and it's THESE people who use it, and it's THESE people who will determine whether it's adiquate enough, not some layman, not some preacher, but experts in their relative field of biology and chemistry.
this is the way things work in the academic community.
either you know what you are talking about and you contribute, or you stay the hell aways to avoid getting your ass handed to you by your ignorance.
 
"Admittedly, Hovind's research scholared me greatly in this regard, since I used to believe"
 
oh dear crap...
i am expectiong ice comets to freeze my ass of any minute now...
 
"thanks to what I now know are lies in the textbooks"
 
heckles embryo's? or did you get the newer version with the photographs and the gene mapping WHICH SHOW THE SAME SIMILARITIES.
 
"When was the last time you watched his seminars?.."
 
6 months ago. i have onyl seen sparse bits of what his son produces, but from what i HAVE seen, it's the same ignorant crap served with snakeoil.
 
"I agree with Hovind that there is evidence for so-called micro-evolution/ variation,"
 
the process by which this happens is the same process by which macro evolution happens, just on a larger scale.
also i'd like to point out that certain cases where hovind conjurs up micro evolution after the flood. are cases of extreme macro evolution (EG speciation in fish and morphologically similar animals).
 
"I believe for the most part that evolution is a religion."
 
which doesn't that sound that suprising, you beign a creationist and all..
me, i'd stick to calling it the best explination to date we have for the diversity of life.

' is to question this so-called science of evolution in terms of wether or not it is observable and testable"
 
it's so easy anyone could actually do it. the problem is it takes a LOOOONG time when it comes to large organsims. fruit flies are MUCH easier and produce faster results, but their speciation is less graphic. but hey...we still have microorganisms....but all creationists ignore those.
 
"Is there any scientific proof for evolution?"
 
allelic frequencies change due to selection of the enviroment.
that's a fact. evolution is a FACT. the theory explains HOW this process works and how it has worked in the past to shape life forms we see today.
 
"it cannot pose itself as science and shouldn't be tax-supported."
 
i'm not gonna jump on the seethign irony of taxexempt status here.
 
"Now, for example, if I can clearly observe petrified trees running through several different layers of rock,"
 
also not that this has somehtign to do ONLY WITH THE AGE OF A CERTAIN GEOLOGICAL SITE.
and slo note that these "layers where deposetid around the same time". and there are los of layers below it aswell.
 
or will you link me papers that say they where produced over millions of years?
 
"each layer supposedly thousands of years old according to ToE,"
 
no, according to geology.
now if we started talking about the species of trees, or pollen in the layers, then we miiiiight be getting a bit closer to ToE.
 
"then science itself has turned the idea of the geologic column and carbon dating on its head."
 
what? you want to carbon date pertified trees?
 
"yet we don't call Christianity 'scientific'"
 
testable and observable VS....musterd seed?
 
"and if the world shows evidence that supports the creationist theory,"
 
which would be.....?
 
"we get that warm fuzzy feeling."
 
which is what? you body functioning? hormones makign you feel all nice and good? that's your brain keeping you happy and fit. not god felling your insides.

"course you can admit that it takes a whoooole lot of faith to BELIEVE that ToE is actually akin to science.'
 
i study life sciences. and without ToE, i'd have no way to predict what would happen if i left a chemostat running for months on end. or i wouldn't know how to produce high yeilding strains of micro organisms, relatively fast, or i wouldn't be able to search for suitible organisms for a specific environment or metabolic pathway by looking at closely related organisms....
 
you see where this is heading?
 
grab a collage text book and start reading.
i'm tired of trying to lift your ignorance a little.
really even a little research does miracles.
and sourcing...VERY important.
 
on the petrified tree stumps, a fast search found these one google scholar
 
Transported trees from the 1982 Mount St. Helens sediment flows: Their use as paleocurrent indicators
William J. Fritza, b and Sylvia Harrisona, b Sedimentary Geology
Volume 42, Issues 1-2, January 1985, Pages 49-64
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/05/04 - 1:42 GMT
"Well now, I'm by no means a scientist or PhD of any kind, but it doesn't take such a person to realise ToE has some serious flaws."
- So how can you discuss a subject where you lack the sufficient knowledge to fully understand it?

"Admittedly, Hovind's research scholared me greatly in this regard, since I used to believe (thanks to what I now know are lies in the textbooks) that God must've used evolution as a means of creation."
- 2 things come in mind. 1. Hovind hasn't done any scientific work at all. His definition of research is to study the bible and interpret it as to support his views. Maybe quotemine some textbooks or scientific articles.
2. Please enlighten us of a textbook that isn't from a christian school that says "God must've used evolution as a means of creation.".

"When was the last time you watched his seminars?.."
- When i needed to feel smart. No seriously, I personally can't stand watching them all becuase I just end up making a huge list of errors and problems with what he says and i just give up at the disparity that is fixing all of his crap.

"I agree with Hovind that there is evidence for so-called micro-evolution/ variation, but the other forms are purely religious."
- It's the same mechanism for both micro and macro, did you know that? So why can one thing happen, but not the other if there's enough time?

"Hence, just to make it clear, I believe for the most part that evolution is a religion."
- So degrading a scientific theory to the standard of what you believe will justify your thought of not believing that theory?

"The idea surely, is to question this so-called science of evolution in terms of wether or not it is observable and testable - as obtained and tested through scientific method."
- And ToE is observable and testable. Just because you haven't seen a species diverge into 2 species doesn't make it so. I'm gonna give you an example. You cannot directly observe and see gravity, BUT you can observe its direct effects. If you throw a stone into the air above you it will fall down on your head. You can test how many genes we have in common with different animals and species to se how far ago we diverged and stopped sharing new genes. We've done studies that show how sexual isolation via hybridization in a population can cause a divergance into 2 species. We got fossils that get less complex and evolved as we go further down into the earth.
If you'd like i could look up those scientific papers for you to see it yourself. Just tell me.

"Is there any scientific proof for evolution?"
- Try http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evidence+for+evolution&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on
1.4 million hits btw.

"If not, it cannot pose itself as science and shouldn't be tax-supported."
- Don't go there, that research is keeping you free from bacteria infections for example.

"Now, for example, if I can clearly observe petrified trees running through several different layers of rock, each layer supposedly thousands of years old according to ToE, then science itself has turned the idea of the geologic column and carbon dating on its head."
- Ever seen an electron? Don't you believe in electrons because you've never seen it clearly? Se how that argument is flawed? If you can't explain why their methods of calculating the age of the rocks are wrong then you don't have a case do you? We give you the evidence that we base our conclusions on and test them. Since the methods of mesuring the age is so widely used there's no question about if it's good or bad. If a method is used 5 million times and hasn't been proven wrong well then i don't know why you would say its wrong. Maybe because you can quotemine that 1 number out of 5 million that doesn't look right?

"And creationists know  that's only the tip of the iceberg. "
- Most of them don't know why icebergs float on water, let alone how to calculate the age of the earth.

"It's strange to me that many evolutionists have a keen interest in trying to prove the creationists wrong, yet we don't call Christianity 'scientific'."
- How is it strange to defend your work from ignorance and people who call it lies?

"It's about faith, and if the world shows evidence that supports the creationist theory, we get that warm fuzzy feeling."
- 2 bad you can't show us any =)

"Evolutionists are the one's who should be worried about the proof, unless of course you can admit that it takes a whoooole lot of faith to BELIEVE that ToE is actually akin to science."
- Yeah we're soooo worried! I mean i haven't given a single sound arguement this whole post! Oh wait... Yes i have!
Well i wouldn't believe it either if i thought the ToE was about a rock and mud magically turning into animals and humans. (anyone got the hint?)


» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/05/05 - 5:07 GMT
The quotes below are from the following sites: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm

"2. Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/05/05 - 14:24 GMT
Poor Ronnie fails to see the logic is flawed in that collection of quotes. Ive asked you before, WHY THE HELL WOULD WE WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME?! If you can't answer it Im allowed to call you "the retard" for the duration of your stay here.

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them."
- Now tell me what evidence have you presented that we haven't given a logical scientific based claim of it being bullshit?

"They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability."
- Oh yeah in the world of atheism you DON'T get jailtime for killing someone! :O
Sounds perfectly logical.

"Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal."
- Right and Darwin must have been one of the founders of social liberalism then? Political and religious ideas hace nothing to do with biology and if it does, It's creationism...

"This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced""
- What a convinient way to say "you didn't fail to understand evolution and debunk it with good arguments and data, but they're just stupid. You're to smart for them even if you don't have a college degree in ANY area you so gladly claim to be lies."

Spamming doesn't make you more right ronnie.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/05 - 14:48 GMT
"many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."
 
....SRLY.
 
""Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them."
 
F U ronnie. repeating this crap isn't a way to argue.
 
"They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability."
...
i am accountable to all of you.....no stop repeating lies.
 
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 87v
Posted 2010/05/05 - 15:27 GMT
Hey, your random name is too long, so I hope you don´t mind, I´ll refer to you as peanut, uh... no I mean ´shadowman´ from now on...
(no, not your allusive theory, the song...)
(can´t wait to hear mine)
 
 
It takes Common Sense to notice the flaws in ToE, often the evidence is as plain as day and textbooks are still filled with lies, but evolutionists love to argue, ronnie knows. (And hey, I know it´s not so wise ronnie, but I´m willing to argue for a while..)
 
It does take a so-called ´expert´ however to debate endlessly in circles.
I´m curious, did you say I´m too poorly educated to understand evolution compared to other scientists, because I´m a creationist or a woman?
And if only the paleantologist- and molecular biologist experts can fully understand the intricacies of ToE, then the majority of ppl are lost.
Clearly you need to be very smart as to fool yourself though, on that I´ll agree.
But hey, you can use ´google search´, you´re much more qualified than I am to talk about the ´facts´.
 
 
I´m guessing you haven´t watched Hovind´s Berkley debate? I strongly suggest you do. Heckle´s embryos etc., etc., etc.
 
"it's so easy anyone could actually do it. the problem is it takes a LOOOONG time when it comes to large organsims. fruit flies are MUCH easier and produce faster results, but their speciation is less graphic."
 
O yes, macro evolution occurs on a laaaaaaaaaarge scale, and over a looooooong period of time, millions and millions of observable and testable years - or so you BELIEVE, that´s not science.
Check the debate for fruit fly research - that´s just sad.
 
ToE is the ´best´ explanation for the diversity of life on earth in your opinion, it´s not scientifically proven and shouldn´t be portrayed that way, or what´s more, forced upon young minds as so-called science.
 
"allelic frequencies change due to selection of the enviroment.
that's a fact. evolution is a FACT. the theory explains HOW this process works and how it has worked in the past to shape life forms we see today."
 
Allelic or Allele....hmm?
Allele frequencies do change, but that, in no way, makes the ToE a ´FACT´... come on.
They change for example due to factors like random genetic drift that can cause marked changes in genetic frequency in a small population. How is this proof of evolution as a whole? Macro evolution? Research done involving changes in allele frequencies have helped in veterinary medicine for example, to improve breeds, but this is science and is in no way proof that you can use this scientific information to breed a cow into a whale. There´s a limit. Theory.......
 
Watch more on petrified trees. Geology has a looooot to do with the theory of evolution. Species of trees and polllen in layers? Man.
Date fossils according to rock layers and layers according to fossils. Circular reasoning.
 
Also the many flaws of carbon dating pointed out by Hovind and many others - you´re so good at googling...
 
"testable and observable VS....musterd seed?"
 
science must be testable and observable, faith believes in what it cannot see. You don´t have to believe what I do for example, but if ToE cannot provide proof for it´s existance, then it´s up to your faith to make it a reality. That´s religious, not scientific, hence it cannot be forced upon the majority of western society at least, where tax dollars are paying for lies in the textbooks, theories often presented as proven ´science´.
 
""and if the world shows evidence that supports the creationist theory,"
 
which would be.....?""
 
The earh shows many signs that it is in fact young and not as oooooooooold as many would like to believe - again Hovind seminars and debates are helpful here.
 
 
""we get that warm fuzzy feeling."
 
which is what? you body functioning? hormones makign you feel all nice and good?""
 
That ´warm fuzzy feeling´ I speak of means that I feel thrilled at the revelation of what I believe to be the truth, however it´s probably similar to the one you feel in your nether regions when you´re debating a creationist.
 
Science is not the enemy, and like Hovind I think that evolution can be taught in schools as long as all the lies are taken out of the textbooks. If that leaves nothing with which to back up your theory, that´s not the creationists´ problem.
 
 
"grab a collage text book and start reading.
i'm tired of trying to lift your ignorance a little.
really even a little research does miracles.
and sourcing...VERY important."
 
A 'collage text book´ ?
You mean ´college textbook´, right?
You might want to lift my ignorance, but at least I can spell, and it´s not even my first language.
 
And you believe in miracles? How ironic.
So evolution is a religion after all...
 
Here´s what I believe:
II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
 
Will reply to your friend Ellman or ´dust in the wind´, in due time..
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
10 hours - 500v
Posted 2010/05/05 - 15:59 GMT
Since, you are new here Dominique, I will cut you some slack for not doing the research. Below is a video that debunks Kent's claims.
 
 
One of the arguments I often have cited that is incorrect, is the oldest tree is 4,300 years old. Meuthuselah is 4,700 years old and there were and are older living organisms than that.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 11:36 GMT
"It takes Common Sense to notice the flaws in ToE, often the evidence is as plain as day and textbooks are still filled with lies"

1 commen sense is quite misleading when it comes to many scientific or mathemetical subjects..
like statistics. or quantitive genome analysis.
and lets not even talk about the biases and perception flaws of the human brain..but nvm all of that.

show me some lies APART from heckle (btw those developmental similarities are STILL THERE).


"I´m curious, did you say I´m too poorly educated to understand evolution compared to other scientists, because I´m a creationist or a woman?"

no, because your initial comments showed all the lack of understanding as your standard creationists...and from the perspective of a student in life sciences, it's a massive lack.


"And if only the paleantologist- and molecular biologist experts can fully understand the intricacies of ToE'

ooho, jolly. almost a quotemine.."lets say" is a expression remember. the point was that people in the relevent fields understand evolution the best , and since they are the ones who utilize and SHAPE IT, they are the sole people who should decide the merit of the theory. not some semieducated layman.

"then the majority of ppl are lost."

which they are. even in a county like NL, most people graps the basics. on a genetic and cellular level. it starts to ebcome a lot harder to grasp.
EG: where are we going to put up a macrocellular concept like "species" when it comes to bacteria and algea?

(btw i didn't even know you where a woman, and not like i would care)

"I´m guessing you haven´t watched Hovind´s Berkley debate?"

no i haven't. but after wathcing his seminars, and soem other debates (including rainbow) or OTHER creationists debates, i don't think it's mcuh different form standard creationist tactics...like the abuse of half asses evidence and ignorance exploitation. hell..most of "evolutionists" end up giving half lectures , instead of debates.


"you´re much more qualified than I am to talk about the ´facts´."

how about you start reading "microbiology of the cell, Alberts 5edition". srly,don't even try the layman trick on me . I actually study in a relevant field. and you?

"O yes, macro evolution occurs on a laaaaaaaaaarge scale,"

look at the mutation rates, then count generations. you'll see what i mean...
pretty sure all those people who shout "adaptation after the flood" didn't do that.
for the intermediate forms, we have the fossil records. and genome analysis between related species.


"Check the debate for fruit fly research - that´s just sad."

link? i'd love to see it.
just as long as someone doesn't say "IT's STILL A FLY". because after they say sucha thing, they already lost their credibility in my eyes.

"it´s not scientifically proven and shouldn´t be portrayed that way"

yet the entire scientific establishment disagrees with you...mmmm.do i smell an atheist conspiracy?

"or what´s more, forced upon young minds as so-called science."

and obvious religious indoctrination should ? (creatinism, or ID)

"Allelic or Allele....hmm?"
i'm ducth, or does sloppy spelling and grammer greatly piss you off?

"Allele frequencies do change, but that, in no way, makes the ToE a ´FACT´... "
no, it makes evolution a fact. since that is the very mechanism by which we observe lots of morphological changes. (from which speciation becomes much more apparent(as in more easily observable))

the THEORY, explains and describes HOW this happens.
you have the FACT that things evolve, and the THEORY that explains how it happens.

"They change for example due to factors like random genetic drift that can cause marked changes in genetic frequency in a small population."

and the expression of these alleles is selceted by the enviromentn on how beenficial they are...which in turns leads a small group to differ greatly and eventually split of the genepool of the parent clade if left isolated long enough for sufficient genetic divergence to accumulate (speciation).
GJ!

"to improve breeds"

and plants. and observable in wide spread populations in which small groups are diverging form the parent clade.
or used as a descriptive factor in fruit fly research, or medical research to genetic diseases.

"this scientific information to breed a cow into a whale."

and that would be evolution HOW?
(see statements like THESE are how i know you poorly understand the subject)

"Watch more on petrified trees."

i'd perfer to read more in geology journals.

"Geology has a looooot to do with the theory of evolution. "

id shows we had the time, and it shows the enviroments in which the fossilizes species evolved, of what environments triggered certain morphological changes.

"Date fossils according to rock layers and layers according to fossils."
oh it's much more complicated then that, ask you local paleontologist.

'Also the many flaws of carbon dating pointed out by Hovind"
"flaws" which the scientist who use the methods ARE ALL AWARE OF. but hovind doesn't tell you that does he?
nor does he even adress all the other isotopes people use in radiometric dating, the ones that actually go beyond 50 000 years...

"Species of trees and polllen in layers?"
yes. that is the kind of information you would be interested in if you where looking for evolution. because you can compare that with other fossils on subsequent strata.

"faith believes in what it cannot see."

i cna see the fossils, the gentic change, the diveregence pattern, the developmental similarities and their divergence...ect,
so what is the problem?

"theories often presented as proven ´science´. "

just like quantum theory ? or big bang? or continental drift?

"The earh shows many signs that it is in fact young and not as oooooooooold "

like what? link so we can debunk.
or we can link you to debunking. (please don't show up with asinine things liek tree rings, or salt concentrations..)

"That ´warm fuzzy feeling´ I speak of means that I feel thrilled at the revelation of what I believe to be the truth,"

yes. now demonstratie it as truth to me.
all you described is the nice physical reaction your faith gives you. nothing more.

"the one you feel in your nether regions when you´re debating a creationist."

no, that would be a mix of amusement, pity and sheer frustration at you lack of intelletual integrity.

that warm feeling you feel i feel when i take a deep breath and look at the people i love and the world around me in all it's beauty. i don't need a magical sky daddy to make em feel good.

"Science is not the enemy"
yet you spit on it when it doesn't jive with you religion. funny..

"in schools as long as all the lies are taken out of the textbooks"

something i FULLY agree with. keep the books up to date and understandable.

'that leaves nothing with which to back up your theory,"

evidence for ToE doesn't come form school text books. it comes form somehting called "the scientific method".

'You might want to lift my ignorance, but at least I can spell, and it´s not even my first language."

OOOH, you got the meaning, yet you moaned about spelling...so WHY THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT I WRITE?

this isn't my first language either, and i'm a tad lazy when it comes to correcting. but i've already explained that plenty of times. (so now i know you aren't a lurker)

"And you believe in miracles? How ironic."
Jezus christ!...figure of speech.

"So evolution is a religion after all..."
sorry, grasping straws like that doesn't earn you points.

'II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation"

and heres what i see when i read that.
"WE are right, but everyone will scoff us, but they are fools and we are still right and they know it!"
such easily recognised propoganda.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 15:44 GMT
"It takes Common Sense to notice the flaws in ToE, often the evidence is as plain as day"
- Common sense is worthless in a scientific context. Common sense is pre-determined thought and ideas about something. If we where to follow common sense and what the majority thinks about a subject, then lasers would be soundwaves... [1]

"and textbooks are still filled with lies"
- Well if you believe a scientific theory to be a hoax and part of a conspiracy ofcourse you're gonna find a lot of "lies". It's kinda ironic though that with the proof-reading and testing from the scientific method, people still call many things lies. While on the other hand creationists "science" has no such method of reviewing the data. That for a fact would make it more certainly lies than anything regarding ToE in textbooks. I haven't personally reviewed much of the supposed lies, but i recon you cannot be 100% accurete if its in a book for 10 year-olds... I mean you cannot describe how all the different proteins and enzymes work in DNA replication for children that young. Another question is the age of the textbooks. If a textbook's from the 70's then its 40 years outdated and doesn't contain numerous data and even complementory theories for ToE.

"but evolutionists love to argue"
- We love to show those who don't know what to believe that creationism doesn't have ANYTHING to say when it comes to the diversity of life on our planet. It's the only reason for us to argue with people like ronnie. To call out his bullshit. I personally think he's to far gone to learn anything about what we advocate.

"It does take a so-called ´expert´ however to debate endlessly in circles."
- Oh you mean like ronnie and bigdog who can't seem to stay on topic but go spam the same things over and over again from different threads? Do some research in older threads and you'll notice it's the creationists who go round in circles because they cannot debate after making a statement. It's copy-paste fest in here!

"And if only the paleantologist- and molecular biologist experts can fully understand the intricacies of ToE, then the majority of ppl are lost."
- By that logic we're all doomed cuz like 11 people in the world can understand the mathmatics behind certain cosmological/astronomical and physics-math. Things that only Stephen Hawkings can calculate. Is that bad? No you don't need to be an expert to understand it, but the fact is the majority of the human population don't know shit about science and shouldn't discuss it for that reason. I like the analogy of "how can you fill a cup with knowledge if it's already full?", when talking about how creationists can't unlearn all the strawmans and actually understand what our ideas are and how they work.

"Clearly you need to be very smart as to fool yourself though, on that I´ll agree."
- Non-reality based bullshit. Spare it.

"But hey, you can use ´google search´, you´re much more qualified than I am to talk about the ´facts´."
- Actually using google is for your sake. If im using a scientific paper that has been published on a site, its way easier for you to find it and actually read it than if i take a university-grade book about advanced molecular biology and use that as a source. You feel me?

"O yes, macro evolution occurs on a laaaaaaaaaarge scale, and over a looooooong period of time, millions and millions of observable and testable years - or so you BELIEVE, that´s not science."
- You wanna tell us your grade in natural science so we can confirm that you have no clue on what you're talking about? Do you not believe in gravity? Because you cannot observe it and test it. You can however test and observe THE EFFECTS of gravity. Just like we can test and observe THE EFFECTS of evolution. I would also like to add that to this day there have been no evidence or agrument that would explain how those effects could happen without evolution or that it didn't happen at all. If a population of Drosophila can diverge into 2 populations due to genetic changes and they live in the same environment, what is there to stop them, given enough time, from being 2 morphological and biological different species? Unless you cannot explain that then the whole micro works, macro don't argument doesn't work.

"Check the debate for fruit fly research - that´s just sad."
- I've actually done some lab work with the Drosophila Melanogaster and It's a great model organism.

"ToE is the ´best´ explanation for the diversity of life on earth in your opinion"
- Our opinions doesn't matter, It's the ONLY explanation for the diversity of life. You can say "well creationism is an explanation bla bla bla etc. etc. etc.", but no. Creationism is a baseless claim that god created everything in its current form. You can't scientifically show any proof or evidence for god and therefore the argument (and yes its a bad arguement) that god created all the living organisms is not working as an explanation. It doesn't explain HOW it happened.

"it´s not scientifically proven and shouldn´t be portrayed that way, or what´s more, forced upon young minds as so-called science."
- I read this and thought, "hmm how can you think this if you didn't understand what you quoted under it.". Then i read some more of your post and i saw you obviously didn't get it. So this isn't science?
http://www.primes.colostate.edu/Lande%201976.pdf
There's literally millions of scientific studies and articles about evolution and it all fits the theory. If it didn't then we would change the theory to best describe reality from what we learn. For this to be lies there have to be a some crazy conspiracy of a million scientists or so and the thought of it is just funny. Btw how are we suppose to show you that there's evidence for evolution, when you don't even understand the fundamentals of it?

"Allele frequencies do change, but that, in no way, makes the ToE a ´FACT´... come on."
- Read what was written again and maybe you get it. Where in the statement does it say "ToE is a fact"? We observe how genes and alleles change over time. The theory is a modell that explains HOW this changes happen.  I recommend this site for you since you fail to understand it. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Its a great site for laymens who don't have the knowledge and education about evolution. There's articles about how it works, what impact it has on life and what evidence there is. If you want to learn how something work you ask someone who knows and not someone who think evolution would concieve a croco-duck.

"How is this proof of evolution as a whole? Macro evolution?"
- THink you got this wrong. We made observations, made hypothesis about how it came to be, tested it and came up with a theory that explains it. Is that so fucking hard to understand? Seriously...
AND WILL YOU PLEASE TELL US what is there to stop micro evolution from becomming macro evolution given enough time? If we know for a fact that the genetic information change over time and that there are a number of mechanisms that can diverge a species so that they cannot interbreed, what is there to stop this from happening? Why is fossils less complex when we go further down into the earth? Why can we trace back time through the genome when our ancestors diverged from different animal groups?

"...but this is science and is in no way proof that you can use this scientific information to breed a cow into a whale. "
- Are you really that stupid and honestly believe that WE believe you can breed a cow into a whale? That's an argument from ignorance and stupidity. Where have ANY evolutionist stated that a cow can breed into a whale?

"Also the many flaws of carbon dating pointed out by Hovind and many others - you´re so good at googling..."
- I'd be suprised if he even knew how to do the calculations for ANY dating method. He's not a geologist, he's not a mathematician and frankly he's not even a scientist. What he believes about carbon dating doesn't matter at all. If he don't understand how it works and have studied it, he don't have the credentials to discard it.

"science must be testable and observable, faith believes in what it cannot see."
- So that makes electrons and neutrinos fake? Come on! Faith is in believing in something when you haven't had any evidence presented to you for that you have faith in. That's why all religions are faith based and why you can have faith in science cuz you wouldn't understand the evidence or the science behind it. You have faith in your computer starting when you push the boot-button, but you have no idea how it works inside so that button can start it.

"You don´t have to believe what I do for example, but if ToE cannot provide proof for it´s existance, then it´s up to your faith to make it a reality."
- But that's not the case even if you'd like to believe that.

"That´s religious, not scientific, hence it cannot be forced upon the majority of western society at least, where tax dollars are paying for lies in the textbooks, theories often presented as proven ´science´."
- There's no controversy and no debate about the autheticity of the theory of evolution. Get over it.

"The earh shows many signs that it is in fact young and not as oooooooooold as many would like to believe - again Hovind seminars and debates are helpful here."
- HAHAHAHA, "signs" :P
So no evidence? I mean Hovinds seminars are as much scientific as this discussion on this forum.
Sooo... you got no clue about it?

"Science is not the enemy, and like Hovind I think that evolution can be taught in schools as long as all the lies are taken out of the textbooks. If that leaves nothing with which to back up your theory, that´s not the creationists´ problem."
- Fair enough, but creationism isn't going into the schools even if evolution's discarded. Also the work of improving the textbooks made that work during a long time and it's called science...  Scientists fix the problems with the textbooks, not the creationist preachers...

"You might want to lift my ignorance, but at least I can spell, and it´s not even my first language."
- Neither is his nor mine, but he's got a bad habit of typing too fast :P

"And you believe in miracles? How ironic.
So evolution is a religion after all..."
- What has the belief in miracles with evolution to do?

Ahh psalms! May not be an argument, but it doesn't bite on anyone but christians...


Source:

[1]National Science Board. 2010. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, Chapter 7 “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding”. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01).

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 16:31 GMT
well u C...it's like this. Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"


» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 18:24 GMT
creationist dishonesty.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 20:47 GMT
"Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

The quotes above are from the following sites: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 21:54 GMT
sooooo dominique.
do you think ronnie's spamming substitutes for an argument?
 
or do you think he's a jackass as much as ellman, sci and the rest of us think he is?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
10 hours - 500v
Posted 2010/05/06 - 23:16 GMT
"CREATIONISTS will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the IRRATIONAL enemy just loves to see you do (the CREATIONIST person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the IDIOITIC influence on them)."

"CREATIONISTS believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed CREATIONIST activist is always, I mean always, socially INADEQUATE. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced" 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/05/07 - 5:23 GMT
you know what i thing about that? i think that Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"


» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
10 hours - 500v
Posted 2010/05/07 - 13:15 GMT
Repeat a small lie and you will believe a bigger lie.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/05/13 - 3:42 GMT
u mean like repeating the lie of evolution to kids taht dinosaurs died millions of years ago so that they'll believe in evolution.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/03 - 23:14 GMT
what nobody's gonna challenge me on this?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/04 - 6:45 GMT
"what nobody's gonna challenge me on this?"
 
ronnie...why would we challange you EVERY TIME  you repeat your idiocy...
we've tackeld those kinds of comments from you enough times before...
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/06/05 - 11:06 GMT
We don't stupe down to your level ronnie and copy paste shit over and over again.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/06 - 0:55 GMT
Whattttt!!!!! that's bologna. U know why? cuz evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/06 - 8:58 GMT
"U know why?"
the irony.
ronnie please.
just grow up. and learn to argue for urself instead of just mindlessly copy paste.
 
watch the atheist experience or something.
hell maybe even call in.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
15 hours - 580v
Posted 2010/06/10 - 12:43 GMT
well scientific credentials is a good way to identify an ends justifies the means liar. It's not what you know but who you believe. having papers doesn't make you smart or honest.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
15 hours - 580v
Posted 2010/06/10 - 12:48 GMT
Ronnie is doing well being gang banged by a bunch of immature, know it all, mean spirited, spoiled children. You folks being paid to post? I seem not to get an answer when I ask this.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/10 - 16:02 GMT
"gues who's back. back again. guess who's back, guess who's back, back again."
it's mike.
 
 
"having papers doesn't make you smart or honest."
no, but it does give youa  hell of a lot more credibility on the subject of said papers.
 and it demonstrates you have what it took to run through peer review, university training ect.,
so it's safe to assume you do know more and are better versed on more subject then say....the waitress at the bar.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/10 - 16:05 GMT
"Ronnie is doing well being gang banged by a bunch of immature,"
 
are we copypasting the same crap over and over again along with unfoundesd accusations? no.
 
"You folks being paid to post?"
aaah more paranioa...how quaint
 
"I seem not to get an answer when I ask this."
we have answered this TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
 
NO.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/10 - 17:36 GMT
ya i think they are being paid to post. i found out they're really old men trying to act like children. thats why they use baby language and cant spell half the time. they work for the obama administration. cuz evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them). evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/10 - 17:55 GMT
" i found out they're really old men trying to act like children."
 
and the supporting evidence for that statement is what?
 
"thats why they use baby language and cant spell half the time."
 
i'd hardly call sci's word choice "baby language".
 
"convinced""
and lol...
you only quoted half...
 
copy-paste fail XD
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/13 - 22:30 GMT
what nobody's gonna challenge me on this?
 
You're doing a great job of making yourself look like a fool all on your own, doesn't look like you need any help from us.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/13 - 22:41 GMT
Whattttt!!!!! that's bologna. U know why?
 
Because your mom got scared and said "you’re moving with your auntie and uncle in bel-air"?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/13 - 22:47 GMT
well scientific credentials is a good way to identify an ends justifies the means liar.
 
So, rather than blindly trusting those with scientific credentials, you blindly distrust them instead? And, in your mind, that's somehow more enlightened?
 
It's not what you know but who you believe. having papers doesn't make you smart or honest.
 
For once, I agree with you. There are many people with credentials, but no real intelligence - and many extremely intelligent people with no credentials to show for it.
 
Of course, that's irrelevant in your case - as you appear to have neither credentials nor intelligence.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/16 - 17:05 GMT
Ronnie is doing well being gang banged
 
Whoa, keep your fantasies to yourself there, Mikey.
 
a bunch of immature, know it all, mean spirited, spoiled children.
 
Awww, looks like we hurt poor widdle Mikey's feelings.
 
You folks being paid to post? I seem not to get an answer when I ask this.
 
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey - didn't your mommy ever tell you that, when you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
15 hours - 580v
Posted 2010/06/16 - 21:45 GMT
stfu bullshit artist. Bully! Educated idiot, parroting his masters' bullshit. assumptions peddled as facts. Evil or stupid? both maybe. 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/17 - 16:12 GMT
mike dont stupe to his level of anger. they just get angry cuz they know evolution is being chellenged and they dont like it. u think anybody except for athiests and evolutionists take him serous any way especially after his perverted comments about Christ?

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6823
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/17 - 16:17 GMT
"
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6823"
 
not all of us like to troll like drwrom. i thought you would have realized that by now.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/17 - 21:26 GMT
stfu bullshit artist. Bully! Educated idiot, parroting his masters' bullshit. assumptions peddled as facts. Evil or stupid? both maybe.
 
Off your meds again, I see.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/17 - 21:32 GMT
mike dont stupe to his level of anger. they just get angry cuz they know evolution is being chellenged and they dont like it.
 
Haw. Haw. Haw.
 
You clowns "challenge" evolution to exact same degree that an infant could "challenge" Mike Tyson.
 
u think anybody except for athiests and evolutionists take him serous any way especially after his perverted comments about Christ?
 
Thank you, ronnie. So often, we focus on just the ignorance and the insanity/inanity of fundamentalist Christians. But in the process we forget about your other traits, like being utterly humourless, and your complete inability to detect irony.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/17 - 22:43 GMT
Mike. see this shows u how evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them). Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"


» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/06/20 - 1:11 GMT
Im beginning to suspect Ronnie is a BOT that posts the same copy paste bs that no human being could possibly write.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/21 - 3:54 GMT
arent u the 1 that believes that we probably came from some type of a slimey magnet-like-creature (BOT) out of a premordal soup before we became monkey-type-creatures?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/21 - 4:52 GMT
I meant: "maget-like-creature."

arent u the 1 that believes that we probably came from some type of a slimey maget-like-creature (BOT) out of a premordal soup before we became monkey-type-creatures?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/21 - 12:59 GMT
Red blood cell colony derived from human embryonic stem
Red blood cell colony derived from human embryonic stem cells by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Photo credit: © Copyright 2001 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
"arent u the 1 that believes that we probably came from some type of a slimey magnet-like-creature (BOT)"
 
ronnie, THIS is what you look like at the mircoscope level.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/21 - 15:04 GMT
Mike. see this shows u how evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed!
 
Did it ever occur to you that the "endless debate" might have something to do with your consistent failure to back up your claims or address challenges to them? Or the way that, whenever you start to lose a debate, you start spouting cliched "culture war" rhetoric? Or the fact that you are unable to stay on-topic even in threads that you started? Or the way that you just copy-paste the same BS over and over again, as you're doing here?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/21 - 19:38 GMT
just tell me this. do you believe that mankind comes from some type of maget like creature that crawled out of an organic soup?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 1:24 GMT
just tell me this. do you believe that mankind comes from some type of maget like creature that crawled out of an organic soup?
 
I'm sure if I were to say "yes," you'd probably reply with something like "lol he beliefs that a maget turned in2 a person lol".
 
You're going to have to make the question a lot more specific than that before I'll even consider answering seriously (spelling "maggot" correctly would be a good start too).
 
For instance, define "maget like" - what specific characteristics do you consider "maget like"?
 
And define "comes from" - are you talking about a distant ancestor, or the immediate progenitor?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 1:36 GMT
arent u the 1 that believes that we probably came from some type of a slimey magnet-like-creature (BOT) out of a premordal soup before we became monkey-type-creatures?
 
What the eff?
 
A "bot" is a piece of computer software, what does that have to do with "magets" (or magnets)?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 2:03 GMT
well what did we look like when we crawled out of whatever since u know so much.

a botfly larva. one of http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bot
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 13:01 GMT
well what did we look like when we crawled out of whatever since u know so much.
 
Sorry, I didn't have my camera with me.
 
a botfly larva. one of http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bot
 
Why in the world would you think that Ellman was referring to a botfly? Are botflies known for making repetitive posts in online forums?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 17:03 GMT
"well what did we look like when we crawled out of whatever since u know so much."
 
are you referring to the first multi cellular organism? the first chordates or the first vertibrates?
 
ronnie, you're just repeating old stale creationist strawman. you're not interested in the answer, or you would have made it much more specific.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 18:54 GMT
just answer the question please.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/22 - 20:08 GMT
just answer the question please.
 
If you made the question clear/specific, I might consider answering it seriously (and I've already pointed out how the question could be made clear).
 
But, as you've phrased it, no - I don't believe that "mankind comes from some type of maget [sic] like creature that crawled out of an organic soup." As 325 alluded to, anything that would have "crawled out of an organic soup" would not have been anywhere near the complexity of a "maget" - and, generally-speaking, single-cell organisims aren't capable of much "crawling" either.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2010/06/24 - 19:26 GMT

That's funny Ronnie! Obviously we had to crawl before we walked. Evolutionists have to believe that we slithered before walked if they believe in the big bang. It must have looked like a worm or something, whatever came alive and moving. Maget like creatures. I'm definately going to remember that one! LOL!
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/06/25 - 1:39 GMT
"Obviously we had to crawl before we walked."
 
or we swam.
 
evolution of tetrapods happened during while they where still amphibians.
 
"Evolutionists have to believe that we slithered before walked if they believe in the big bang."
 
that makes no sense at all.
 
but about the first part.
so what?
so what if our ancestors had to crawl?

"It must have looked like a worm or something,"
 
....
there are so many different ways different organisms crawl.
just look at hot insects, worms, snakes, leeches, cattipillars all move themselves.
 
and then you still have all the animals that SWIM.
 
"Maget like creatures."
 
...repeating the blatant spelling mistake isn't really helping ronnie look any more credible...
OR perhaps...this isn't bigdog himself posting...
 
it's just REALLY odd, that 2 native speakers of english would make the EXACT same spelling mistake, not to mention the "LOL" and the praise...
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2010/06/26 - 6:19 GMT

Hey Ronnie. Just wanted to let you know I was debating this anti-Christ guy at work (yes I decided to get a job again, for a while) about evolution, monkey like creatures and maggots (yes paranoid 365 is right about the spelling. You're rubbing off bad spelling on me), and he got so mad that he didn't even come back after lunch. He called the office back and said he got sick. He was trying to offend me, but got offended. Crazy people. Oh well. GOD bless guys.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/26 - 17:19 GMT
U rock BIGDOG! where u been dude? i'm going to make a thread dedicated to you titled Do we come from magot like creatures?!!. take it easy bro! u where the one who fired me up after Hovind.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/06/29 - 20:53 GMT
he got so mad that he didn't even come back after lunch. He called the office back and said he got sick. He was trying to offend me, but got offended.
 
What, did you accuse him of being a pedophile too?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/06/30 - 0:19 GMT
no i accused u of coming from magget like creatures.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/06/30 - 10:08 GMT
Have you ever noticed that creationist generally can not spell.
 
That's because they are stupid.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/02 - 20:31 GMT
well excuse me maggot. atleast i don't believe that i come from one like u evolutionists
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/07/03 - 11:41 GMT
I would like to make sweet, sweet love to a creationist.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/04 - 0:31 GMT
Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online
- Yeah you'll lose hard and make a mockery of yourself.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/04 - 12:45 GMT
no i accused u of coming from magget like creatures.
 
So now you're replying to questions directed at bigdog? Interesting...
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/04 - 13:24 GMT
well excuse me maggot. atleast i don't believe that i come from one like u evolutionists
 
So your best criticism of evolution is essentially "ewww gross."
 
And you want to know the truly sad/funny bit, ronnie? Your constant bizarre, nonsensical lies about "what evolutionists believe" still aren't anywhere near as silly as what you actually believe: that a magical man in the sky made us out of dirt.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/04 - 17:45 GMT
not magical. spiritual. something that science hasn't caught up with yet for some. but no it still sounds to rediculous to have a accidentally come from crawling and monkey like creatures.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/05 - 23:30 GMT
so why do you believe something that rediculous? That we actually believe what you just described. 

We've already explained this over and over again, but you fail to graps it. Is it because you're stupid or just to caught up in the "god-made-the-earth-and-all-life-as-it-is-now"-idea that you can't think logically or even use skepticism?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/05 - 23:33 GMT
your just mad cuz people are finding out the truth
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/06 - 11:50 GMT
no im just astonished at your level of stupidity and peoples inability to think for themselves. You can't even make arguments for what you links you posted cuz u don't even understand them.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/10 - 1:44 GMT
no im just astonished at your level of stupidity and peoples inability to think for themselves. You can't even make arguments for what you links you posted cuz u don't even understand them.

no sorry. i do think for myself. i says to myself "self. do we come from worm like creature? NO." your the 1 whos been brainwashed with that gargage.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/07/10 - 10:31 GMT
" i says to myself "self. do we come from worm like creature?"
 
so it's personal incredulity now?
whow....there's somethign new.
 
oh and ronnie, at least we formulate arguments ourselves and then back them up. all you do is COPY PASTE fallacies. and then scurry away from the criticism...
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/10 - 14:48 GMT
u haven't brought any evidence that we come from worm like creatures.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/07/11 - 12:49 GMT
I would like to make sweet, sweet love to a worm-like creature
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/11 - 21:02 GMT
U probably would worm. is that why they call u worm? cuz u come from worm like creatures?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/11 - 22:57 GMT
That's funny Ronnie! Obviously we had to crawl before we walked. Evolutionists have to believe that we slithered before walked if they believe in the big bang. It must have looked like a worm or something, whatever came alive and moving. Maget like creatures. I'm definately going to remember that one! LOL!
 
Also known as the "Beavis & Butthead defense".
 
"Huh huh huh, he thaid 'maget,' huh huh huh. What a dumbath"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 3:53 GMT
I wrote:
 
that a magical man in the sky made us out of dirt.
 
Then ronnie replied:
 
not magical. spiritual.
 
Ah, sorry, so you believe that a "spiritual" man in the sky made us out of dirt? An important distinction to be sure.
 
something that science hasn't caught up with yet for some.
 
Hahaha, yes, silly science and its stubborn insistence on evidence and sound, intenally-consistent reasoning.
 
but no it still sounds to rediculous to have a accidentally come from crawling and monkey like creatures.
 
"accidentally come from crawling and monkey like creatures" - there we have it, ronnie's understanding of evolution in a nutshell.
 
Thank for, once again, demonstrating why infantile ridicule is so much easier than coming up with an alternative theory, or even a valid critique.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 3:57 GMT
your just mad cuz people are finding out the truth
 
You mean that fact that creationists are usually insane, borderline-retarded political ideologues who blindly swallow any horsehit that's fed to them by Faux News, ConservaPedia, or their church leader?
 
Yeah, sorry, I don't think that was ever much of secret.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 4:13 GMT
no im just astonished at your level of stupidity and peoples inability to think for themselves. You can't even make arguments for what you links you posted cuz u don't even understand them.
 
Did you actually just quote from a comment that you were replying to?!?!? Who are you and what have you done with ronnie?!?!?
 
no sorry. i do think for myself. i says to myself "self. do we come from worm like creature? NO."
 
It would be humanly impossible to make that statement sound any dumber than it already does, so I'm not even going to try.
 
your the 1 whos been brainwashed with that gargage.
 
Congratulations, ronnie, you've managed to demonstrate a lower level of literacy than the average thumb-typed text message.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 4:24 GMT
u haven't brought any evidence that we come from worm like creatures.
 
Too bad that none of us have actually made that claim. Another infantile creationist strawman - yawwwwn, next?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 4:25 GMT
hey sci borg the "FAKE" scientist is back! how ya been faker?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 5:42 GMT
so what were the first living creatures faker?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 11:23 GMT
I would like to make sweet, sweet love to the first living creature.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 18:28 GMT
ronnie, how the first life looked like is irrelevant because life still follows the natural laws and selection that ToE tries to explain in a sane logical and actually viable way. It could be god, it could be spotaneus chemical reactions due to local environment changes and for all i care, I doesn't matter. You don't have to know from where the river starts to know that it will flow down...
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 18:56 GMT
thats the worst coppout i ever heard from u. it doesnt matter? then what the hell are you doing here talking about evolution and the origins of life?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 19:01 GMT
Would you like to taste my sweet lovin?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 20:28 GMT
hey sci borg the "FAKE" scientist is back! how ya been faker?
 
Awww, look - I hurt ronnie's widdle feelings again.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 20:39 GMT
so what were the first living creatures faker?
 
Unless you're even move obtuse than I thought, you already know the answer to that question. And if someone makes the mistake of taking it seriously, your response will be something along the lines of:
 
"lol see u evil-olushunists don't no everythang, so u msut be rong about every thing!!!!1111 lol"
 
Could you at least *try* not to be so transparent?
 
Of course, you're just demonstrating a point that I've made numerous times before: given a choice between uncertain reality and bullshit fantasies, creationists will take the bullshit every time (as long as the bullshit is stated as certainty).
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/12 - 20:50 GMT
thats the worst coppout i ever heard from u. it doesnt matter? then what the hell are you doing here talking about evolution and the origins of life?
 
How can you be THAT stupid and yet still remember to breathe?
 
Between 325, Ellman, and I, we've probably pointed out several hundred times that the EVOLUTION of life is a distinct field of study from the ORIGIN of life.
 
It's you and the other creatards who constantly bring up the origin of life - either in a pathetically-obvious attempt to muddy the water, or because you're just too damn'd stupid to tell the difference. At this point, I think it's probably a bit of both.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/13 - 17:13 GMT
it's a simple question. what did the first living creatures look like?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/07/13 - 21:46 GMT
They were small.  hth
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/14 - 16:19 GMT
it's a simple question.
 
...not to mention a thoroughly inane question, and an obviously-loaded question.
 
what did the first living creatures look like?
 
That's about as useful and relevant a question as asking "what did the first graviton look like"?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/14 - 23:44 GMT
just give your most scientific answer.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/15 - 22:29 GMT
Ronnie, Does life exist? I think we can conclude that it does even if you're intellect may be lacking. The fact that we know life WAS created doesn't change anything for the question "Is evolution something that actually happens?". Abiogenesis is just a really big question that we might never find out about, but it got a lot of how should i say it? Sentimental value? It's a very interesting question to finally find out our origin, just like heiritage research and humanoid based paleontology.

But EVEN if god started the first cell on earth, it doesn't change the fact that observations and empirical evidence proves that evolution is occuring wheter you like it or not. We don't need to know how life began to be able to further society on a public way. Evolution on the other hand can help us understand why animals (and us humans) act and why and how we can help them (and ourselves) for example. How to counter diseases and such.


Oh wait no we don't need medicine, we can just go to Popoff and get healed by christ! :O
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/15 - 23:21 GMT
U believe that we came from nothing or energy, a non-intelligent source, that was already there, to this complex stage, and u say thats not a miracle? all you can do is mock. just give me a scientific explanation of the first creatures that came alive. is that so hard? teach me.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/16 - 4:46 GMT
anybody still there? i'm waiting to learn about evolution
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/07/16 - 11:24 GMT
"U believe that we came from nothing or energy"
 
and either option is VERY DIFFERENT.
ronnie, all matter IS condensed energy.
so not only did we come from energy, we still are energy.
 
"a non-intelligent source"
 
so? chemistry works because of the realtionships between particles and forces. not pure intellect.
we we're "made" for this universe, this universe was not made for us.
 
"that was already there, to this complex stage, and u say thats not a miracle?"
 
?
no one suggest that energy was already arranged into matter, let alone complex molecules when the big bang happend.
the particles became larger and stabled untill they formed the first atoms, those atoms (hydrogen) could then clump together into stars where they could be fused into larged atoms, like helium , oxygen and carbon.
 
NONE of this requires and intelligence.
 
"just give me a scientific explanation of the first creatures that came alive."
 
well from looking at the simplist forms of life all we can hypothesis is that is had
A: a lipid membrane (first stem to a living system
B: a polymer of molcecules that could self raplicate (porbably RNA)
C: once the RNA basis for ribosomes and t-RNA where synthesised (from subsequent duplication and mutation of the host RNA, it had a proto protien synthesis device.
 
remember, these primitive organisms had about at least 2 bilion years of trial and error before they would even evolve the mechanism to use oxygen and it became fesable to become multicellular.
 
but shit, this is all high school biology. you should already know this, even if it was because this is like the 3rd time i already explained this to you.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/17 - 16:13 GMT
Ronnie, How can you fill a cup that is already full? You so strongly believe that all we say is untrue that it doesn't matter what we say. We can never convince you of anything let alone on the subject of evolution.

If you think we/I believe that then you haven't accknowledged anything we've written.

Is it so hard to accept that all the energy in the universe has always been here? I don't know to be honest and i don't find it usefull for us to discuss it without the knowledge to understand how space works. When you got calculations that describes the different models of our universe that are so advanced that only a handfull of people can understand them and it's meanings, we as common people without the lacking knowledge shouldn't discuss it.

The model i find most logical in my view of the universe is the cycle-version. I don't know the exact name of the model (maybe some physicist can help?), but the idea that there have been indefinit amounts of big bang and when a universe has "lived" long enough it will collapse into energy and induce another big bang restarting the cycle. This might not be the case, but this is what i believe.

We have so many forces that change and interact with other materia that given enough time its plausible to get a hugh amount of environments and reactions etc. We have gravitational pull between mass, we have electron and proton attraction, we have magnetic forces and numerous others.

Telling that it was god will only further the question into asking "who made god?" or "where did god come from in the first place?". Ofcourse these questions are hard for us to comprehend and accept, but for me the answer of big bang cycles is working in my mind. That energy cannot be destroyed so it's always been here.

If we mock you if's because you do the same thing. Does my post have mockery in it or is this a serious post?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/17 - 16:28 GMT
that's an interesting belief, but when u say, we as common people without the lacking knowledge shouldn't discuss it." thats not true. everyone should discuss it. that makes u subjective as opposed to objective in science and belief. its like the priests that say, just dont question the pope, cuz he has studied this. we have to question all things and constantly reform to what is true. ya i'm catholic, but do i believe everything in the catholic church no.

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/07/17 - 17:29 GMT
" everyone should discuss it."
 
yes, but only the people with the knowledge on the subject should be taken seriously and should be considered anything resembling authorative.
 
a biologist does not discuss quantum physics, a quantum physisist does not discuss genetics and a dockworker does not argue science if he doesn't understand it, at least you won't attach any significance to his arguing.
 
of course that doesn't mean the dockworker can make a valid point.
but to the people who DO know something on the subject, the dockworker is easily exposed in his ignorance.
 
"that makes u subjective as opposed to objective in science and belief"
 
beleif is by practice subjective
and science is to, the only difference is science at least tries to approach objectivity as much as possible. by using things like double blind tests, statistic analysis and finely tuned and calibrated instruments.
 
"we have to question all things and constantly reform to what is true."
 
i agree.
but that means you at least have to gain more knowledge on the subject.
something you forgot to do when it comes to....well just about everything in science.
 
"its like the priests that say, just dont question the pope, cuz he has studied this."
 
which is not what we are saying.
what we are saying is: "don't argue this if you have no idea what it is about, and if you DO want to argue it, go an learn somehting about it and then come back."
 
which is basically what universities do in science studies. they train you in the knowledge and techniques so you can add discussion, and data, to a specific field of science.

"ya i'm catholic, but do i believe everything in the catholic church no."
 
the proper question here is:
"do you know all there is to being a catholic and then chose the label, or do you just carry the label, knowing only vaguely what defines it?"
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/18 - 5:04 GMT
ronnie when i said that i meant it like if two 7-year olds where given the task of discussing how standard deviation works when they obviously don't have the knowledge to do so properly. Sure they can google it or look it up on wikipedia, but will they understand how it works and be able to use it? No i don't think so. Will we be able to discuss quantum physics? yeah maybe, but it would only be on laymens terms and what knowledge we could gather from a very advanced article on wikipedia or some other encyclopedia site for example.


Can you see the problem with that ronnie?

Also one factor is peoples ability of bending the truth if they didn't fully understand the subject in the first place. If you read about something that you have no education with and might be very advanced and lets say for the sake of my point that you got the basic idea, but not how the math behind the idea works or how someone came up with the discovery. If that person tries to teach or tell about what he read and didn't fully understand it would only spread misinformation. I bet you've heard some "common sense"-myths in your life that derived from just this kind of event.

I say if you want to discuss something (i mean ANYTHING) you should go learn more about it and maybe talk to someone that does understand it if it's hard to comprehend and discuss or you know like test it. To see if you understood correctly and learned it properly. THEN i find it fitting for you to discuss it in any setting of your choice.

If you don't even know what we believe in, how can you refute us?
How can you prove that what we claim is false if you don't have the knowledge to know what we advocate? Think about it ronnie. Please read what i wrote again after you read my questions in the end.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/21 - 3:31 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/07/21 - 11:41 GMT
Ronnie how are we, let alone ANYONE, gonna take you seriously when you spam the same bullshit over and over again? When you just take a shit on our argumentation without even TRYING to refute it. You are just a stupid creationist troll just like Dr. Worm is for from our side.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/23 - 18:54 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed!
 
So... we win again? Thanks for conceding defeat, I guess.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/23 - 20:01 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/07/30 - 14:40 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed!
 
Great, I guess we win. Again.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/07/31 - 2:56 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/08/02 - 19:29 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed!
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 weeks - 32,767v
Posted 2010/08/06 - 2:28 GMT
Ronnie, 
 
I love how you are recycling the same paragraph over and over again, without any acknowledgement to the debate going on, or any actual defense.
Way to prove your point Ronnie, but right now it seems the opposite, that Extremists Creationist will lead you into endless debate.
Ronnie, if you would care to put up an actual debate with me, I'd love to participate, but right now, you are wasting my time.
 
With Warm Regards,
 
TheDude
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/08/09 - 18:29 GMT
Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2010/08/11 - 13:14 GMT
haha look at what Ronnie added :P
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
9 hours - 765v
Posted 2010/08/13 - 11:25 GMT
I would like to make sweet, sweet love to what Ronnie added.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/08/16 - 23:01 GMT
Who Will Ben "the rationalist" (accountant), also known as, Sci-borg "The (fake) doctor of Science"/Ron'sevilbro "the Attorney", return as Next? I think it's funny how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ.
(http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6695)
May God forgive him. It shows you the type of mind and person he really is. He's lost all credibility with me. Read some of his comments on this page that shows more evidence of what kind of a sick person he is (http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6407). He doesn't care about the truth. He' unaware of the demonic influence over him
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/08/17 - 14:12 GMT
Who Will Ben "the rationalist" (accountant), also known as, Sci-borg "The (fake) doctor of Science"/Ron'sevilbro "the Attorney", return as Next? I think it's funny how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ.
(http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6695)
 
Damn, ronnie, are you TRYING to prove the stereotypes about fundie hypocrisy?
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/06 - 4:41 GMT
are u serious? because evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/11/07 - 15:01 GMT
are u serious?
 
Damn, ronnie, you're responding to a post from August 17th and that's the best reply you've managed to come up with in all that time? You truly are a master debater.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/13 - 4:44 GMT
here's one for kevin. evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 169v
Posted 2010/11/13 - 15:17 GMT
Are you not capable of original thought ron?  Here is a word of advice...at least try not to stoop to such acts as using your power as a forum moderator to change someone's profile to falsely indicate they are an atheist:)  That is rather sneaky....Oh, and try not to resort to deleting their post in an attempt to remove negative reflections on your character:)
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 169v
Posted 2010/11/13 - 15:22 GMT
Nice...Ron will try to lead you into endless debate, and he will more often than not succeed! He will always, almost without exception, get the last word. He will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual idiot just loves to see you do (the evangelical person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the detrimental influence on them).  Ron believes what he does despite any evidence presented to him. He is firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed creationist activist is always, I mean always, socially conservative. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince him, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives him; He simply does not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/13 - 16:24 GMT
kevin. is your real name ben? just wondering?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/14 - 3:06 GMT
notice how kevin didn't answer this question when asked if he's really ben the sock puppet? it's because he is. good ol Ben the rationalist also known as sci borg the "FAKE" doctor of science.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 169v
Posted 2010/11/14 - 3:46 GMT
No Ron, my real name is Kevin.  Thus why the name kevin appears beside (pauliexcluded).  You banned me once from evolutionfairytales.com.  You don't remember me?  You just RECENTLY banned me again...I was trollin':)
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 hour - 169v
Posted 2010/11/14 - 3:48 GMT
I didn't answer as I am a graduate student down here and have quite a lot on my plate.  We are, after all, basically slave labor for the University.  Hey, notice how Ron gave me less than 12 hours to respond before accusing me of not responding?  You are a goober Ron.  So...have you dealt with those pride issues?  When you get over your idol worship of Ikester, how about opening the cooler back up?  I would love the opportunity to chat with you in an environment where you would feel more in control and thus we could be less hostile.
 
P.S.  Tell Adam I said hey!
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/11/14 - 18:09 GMT
notice how kevin didn't answer this question when asked if he's really ben the sock puppet?
 
Don't you have some more posts from August that you could be replying to, ronnie?
 
it's because he is. good ol Ben the rationalist also known as sci borg the "FAKE" doctor of science.
 
So do creationists receive training on how to miss the point, or are you just naturally-gifted?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
15 hours - 580v
Posted 2010/11/15 - 5:50 GMT
Man, these guys are sick. There are no answers to the universe. All it is, is an endless debate. Since no human knows the answers, yet, science has no place in a philosophical arguement about a written creator. And we would be more prudent searching for the one true creator then lying to people about what is fact and what is assumed. They keep making assumptions and cursing anyone whom discards their assumptions as if they were universal facts. So you geeks go back to your labs and find the proof you are desparate for and leave us alone til you have proof, otherwise, Stop spreading opinions in the trojan horse of truth.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/11/16 - 1:06 GMT
Man, these guys are sick. There are no answers to the universe...
 
Holy hell, did you knock back a pint of rum before writing that? I'd reply, but I'm still trying to figure out what in Bob's name your point is.
 
Is this a relative of yours by any chance?
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/17 - 1:53 GMT
yo mike. the reason they don't wanna leave u alone is cuz  evolutionists want to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
2 weeks - 32,767v
Posted 2010/11/17 - 2:37 GMT
I don't even feel like quoting that, at all.
 
Shove it Ronnie, we've heard that same BS for nearly 6 months now. You are very lucky the actual administrator isn't here, or your account would have been gone.
Your ineptitude on how to conduct yourself here is quite amazing Ronnie. Hell, we gave you a chance to actually try and debate, but you blew it (And we didn't even do anything, you did it yourself). We've asked you for evidence supporting your claims, and have been blatantly ignored. I still am not quite sure why you think Sci and I are the same person, when we are clearly not. I'd like to point out, that just because somebody disagrees with your certain belief, does not make them a "chester", or "imposter" or "satin worshiper". What it means, is that we, just like you, are an individual with certain beliefs we believe to be true.
 
I'll give evidence to support my claim that evolution is a fact:
 
  1. Galapagos Island is a perfect example of evolution with all it's creatures, and how they have adapted to the harsh conditions on the island.
  2. The drug penicillin. Introduced in 1945, it was called "The Miracle Drug", but over time, it became useless and is now rarely used. Why? Because the bacteria adapted to their environment in order to survive, and became immune to the drug. It's been proven by science, and is seen in action every time penicillin is used to treat the flu. 
  3. The Speckled Moth. This is a famous story from Pittsburgh, moths used to be solely brown, to blend into trees. However, in the industrial evolution of the 1890's, the coal companies and smoke made the trees black, which exposed the moths to predators. They adapted to the changed environment, and became black. However, when the coal companies left, the trees were once again brown, once again exposing the moths. They thus became speckled moths. 

Theres my evidence, where is yours?

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/17 - 4:49 GMT
ok here is evidence for micro evolution anthony/ben or whatever u call ur self today. we used to believe that we came from monkey type creatures now we're not stupid anymore. we've evolved. that's it. can u find the hidden message in also becuz evolutionists want to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/11/17 - 9:29 GMT
"
  1. The drug penicillin. Introduced in 1945, it was called "The Miracle Drug", but over time, it became useless and is now rarely used. Why? Because the bacteria adapted to their environment in order to survive, and became immune to the drug. It's been proven by science, and is seen in action every time penicillin is used to treat the flu. "
funny thing about that. the bacteria not only evolved a resistance penniciline, but also to the entire family of fungal derived antibiotics (B lactam compounds). all you need is one succesfull gonjugation, and you have an entirely new strain of resistant bacteria.
 
i would also like to add, cytochrome C, cicklecell anemia, MRS, nylonase and may others to your list of evidence.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/11/17 - 9:30 GMT
"ok here is evidence for micro evolution"
 
which is evolution...
(btw galapagos islands are about as macro evolutionary as you can get) different species in different populations in segragated habitats.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/18 - 0:17 GMT
NYU Prof Sides with Matthew, Not Darwin, on Fossil Record by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Charles Darwin is widely credited with providing the first proper treatment of "natural selection" in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. He portrayed it as a natural law with intelligent and powerful attributes—nature could select, could preserve the fittest, and, given time and enough accumulated small changes, could transform and create new and different life forms.

But fossils failed to provide the evidence to support this unscientific version of history. If Darwin's theory is correct, there should be untold myriads of different life forms gradually transitioning from one to another. Instead, organisms look distinct, fully formed, and essentially the same wherever they appear, whether in the rock record and or in the living world.

New York University geologist Michael Rampino recently acknowledged that 19th-century horticulturist Patrick Matthew may have published, almost three decades earlier than Darwin, an evolutionary history of life that is closer to what the fossil record actually shows.1

Darwin insisted that evolution transforms species by slow and gradual changes. Matthew, in 1831, described natural selection as driving the transformation of species primarily through catastrophic events that resulted in periodic mass extinctions, thus clearing the way for surrounding creatures to adapt to and populate new ecological environments. According to Rampino's essay published in the journal Historical Biology, Matthew's version fits the fossil record more accurately.

At its core, however, a discussion over which version of evolution by means of natural selection best fits fossils commits the fallacy called "begging the question." That is, the conclusion of evolution by natural selection is assumed in the premise.

Matthew appears to have theorized that evolution of new body forms could occur rapidly as extinction events clear out new habitat space. Since fossilized creatures show the most variations when found in those layers that are above (and thus were deposited after) an apparent extinction event, the evolution of new body forms is therefore assumed to have occurred rapidly following those events.

Whether evolution occurred quickly following catastrophic extinctions or slowly and gradually is an invalid discussion, however, if evolution by natural selection does not occur at all! This third option is often ignored but is nevertheless most consistent with both the fossil and biblical data.

The reason that there is none of the expected abundance of transitional forms is because Darwinian evolution never happened. Life forms were each a product of creation, not evolution. And the reason that there are variations within basic body plans―like rapid adjustments to fin size,2 shell size,3 body size,4 coloration,5 or the number of tusks, horns, or toes,6 for example―is because each creature's basic form was designed to express such variations. Those designs were intended to enable creatures to adapt to new environments as they "multiply, and replenish the earth"7—an especially important ability following a natural disaster.

References

  1. Darwin's Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes. New York University press release, November 9, 2010, reporting on results in Rampino, M. R. Darwin's error? Patrick Matthew and the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. Historical Biology. Published online before print November 8, 2010.
  2. Thomas, B. Shark Study Hammer More Nails in Evolution's Coffin. ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 15, 2010, accessed November 11, 2010.
  3. Thomas, B. Snail Changes Outpace Evolution's Slow Crawl. ICR News. Posted on icr.org April 14, 2009. Accessed November 11, 2010.
  4. Thomas, B. Dinosaur Ranks Shrink as Species Numbers Dwindle. ICR News. Posted on icr.org October 13, 2009. Accessed November 11, 2010.
  5. Thomas, B. Butterfly Mimicry Is Based on Elegant Genetic Switches. ICR News. Posted on icr.org March 18, 2010, accessed November 11, 2010.
  6. Thomas, B. Elephant Secrets under Middle East Sands. ICR News. Posted on icr.org January 26, 2009. Accessed November 11, 2010.
  7. Genesis 1:28.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on November 17, 2010.

http://www.icr.org/article/5780/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29

» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/11/18 - 8:39 GMT
"If Darwin's theory is correct, there should be untold myriads of different life forms gradually transitioning from one to another. Instead, organisms look distinct, fully formed, and essentially the same wherever they appear, whether in the rock record and or in the living world."
 
oh ya...because ancient crocs are still the same to modern crocs right?
i wonder if mr thomas ever looked at a genome sequence...
or fossils in this case,
 
" According to Rampino's essay published in the journal Historical Biology, Matthew's version fits the fossil record more accurately."
 
ya, punctuated equilibrium.
another mode by which evolution happens.
the fossils indicate both ways occur, and neither are mutually exclusive.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/11/19 - 0:30 GMT
ok here is evidence for micro evolution anthony/ben or whatever u call ur self today. we used to believe that we came from monkey type creatures now we're not stupid anymore. we've evolved. that's it.
 
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if you seriously believe that's an accurate summary of the evidence for evolution.
 
Oh, and don't creationists generally accept "micro evolution"? Last I checked, "micro" evolution is a term made up by creationists, because even they realize how stupid they'd look trying to deny that (E.g.) bacteria become resistant to antibiotics due to evolution.
 
TL;DR:
You're doing it wrong.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/11/19 - 9:56 GMT
"Oh, and don't creationists generally accept "micro evolution"? Last I checked, "micro" evolution is a term made up by creationists"
 
it's not. it's an actual biology term that describes evolution on the species level (like subspeciation). The term however isn't used as much because the porcess is the same and the temr is thus kind of redundant.
that and it's archaic.
 
"because even they realize how stupid they'd look trying to deny that (E.g.) bacteria become resistant to antibiotics due to evolution."
 
and then that is true.
microevolution has endeed been bastardized by creationists for that exact reason.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/11/24 - 2:24 GMT
are you sure? cuz evolutionists want to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/11/25 - 21:10 GMT
"Oh, and don't creationists generally accept "micro evolution"? Last I checked, "micro" evolution is a term made up by creationists"

it's not. it's an actual biology term that describes evolution on the species level (like subspeciation). The term however isn't used as much because the porcess is the same and the temr is thus kind of redundant.
 
You're right, poor wording on that part. That should have been "the importance of the distinction between micro and macro is disgenously over-stated by creationists". My understanding, at least, is that the only fundamental difference is one of scale - and that "macro" evolution is essentially just large amounts of accumulated micro-evolution/micro-evolution on a larger scale.
 
"because even they realize how stupid they'd look trying to deny that (E.g.) bacteria become resistant to antibiotics due to evolution."

and then that is true.
microevolution has endeed been bastardized by creationists for that exact reason.
 
Makes me wonder how many creationist out there refuse to take courses in Macro Economics, fearing that they'll be subjected to some sort of "Darwinist indoctrination".
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/12/11 - 2:58 GMT
Who Will sci-borg (the "FAKE" doctor of science), also known as Geoff Stilus (Stiles) /kevin(pauliexcluded) / the "dude" (FAKE christian evolutionist) / Ben "the rationalist" (accountant) / Ronnie's evil twin (the Attorney) / bIdog (the imposter), return as Next?  evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/12/11 - 14:57 GMT
"Who Will sci-borg (the "FAKE" doctor of science), also known as Geoff Stilus (Stiles) /kevin(pauliexcluded) / the "dude" (FAKE christian evolutionist) / Ben "the rationalist" (accountant) / Ronnie's evil twin (the Attorney) / bIdog (the imposter) return as Next?"
 
as jezus ofc.
who else?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online cont.
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2010/12/11 - 22:40 GMT
as jezus ofc.
who else?
 
I'm also Santa Christ. And John Galt.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 4,624v
Posted 2010/12/21 - 17:34 GMT
Hello Ronnie, you've made my day quite a bit more exciting with your antics. Being a Christian who beleives in an old earth, I beleive your faith is admirable, but your complete lack of tact, common sense, and credible references makes your arguments quite flimsy and entertaining.
 
Answer me this. If some stars are many thousands or millions of light years away, how can the universe be ~10,000 years old? A light year, if you don't know, is the distance light travels in one year. Therefore, the very existence of stars millions of light years away negates any and all possibility of an young earth. I know that one creationist scientist attempted to prove that the speed of light has changed to accomadate this descrepancy, but it has been proven completely false.
 
And before you say that I can't be a Christian and beleive the earth is greater than ~10,000 years old, let me say this. My salvation consists of me believing that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from its sins. That is all that I need to be a Christian. Any beleif that I may have cocerning an old earth does not affect my salvation.
 
I'm praying for you Ronnie.
 
Thanks,
Elfman
 
p.s. - Hey TheDude! Haven't seen you around. I'm not asking you to come back to MarsXPLR or anything, but you will always be welcome. Also, when you left HumorAmerica went with you. It has been reconstructed by PointyBagels, but it lacks the old background (and possible the old posts, though I am unsure of this). See you around! (or not)
 
p.p.s. - Neither myself nor TheDude is an alias for any other person.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2010/12/22 - 15:16 GMT
"p.p.s. - Neither myself nor TheDude is an alias for any other person."
 
disclaimer for ronnie...
pretty sad you actually felt obliged to do that..
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.'
1 day - 2,617v
Posted 2010/12/23 - 2:35 GMT

 

if people want to know the real ronnie all they have to do is look at all of my original post...specificaly my most famous post here.
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-5162

Who Will Ben/sci-borg (the "FAKE" doctor of science), also known as THE FAKE ronnie(l.a.)(Ronnie)/FAKE bIgdog/Geoff Stilus (Stiles) /kevin(pauliexcluded) / the "dude" (FAKE christian evolutionist) / Ben "the rationalist" (accountant) / Ronnie's evil twin (the Attorney), return as Next?

I think it's funny how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ. He doesn’t even care if kids can read his filth.
(http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6695)
May God forgive him. It shows you the type of mind and person he really is. He's lost all credibility with me. Read some of his comments on this page. Here's even some more evidence of what kind of a sick person he is (http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6407). He doesn't care about the truth. He' unaware of the demonic influence over him (from the doctor of lies). 

evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

Who Will sci-borg (the "FAKE" doctor of science), also known as THE FAKE ronnie(l.a.)(Ronnie)/Geoff Stilus (Stiles) /kevin(pauliexcluded) / the "dude" (FAKE christian evolutionist) / Ben "the rationalist" (accountant) / Ronnie's evil twin (the Attorney) / bIdog (the imposter), return as Next?

I think it's funny how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ. He doesn’t even care if kids can read his filth.
(http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6695)
May God forgive him. It shows you the type of mind and person he really is. He's lost all credibility with me. Read some of his comments on this page. Here's even some more evidence of what kind of a sick person he is (http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6407). He doesn't care about the truth. He' unaware of the demonic influence over him (from the doctor of lies). 

evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

 

» Reply to Discussion (Too Many Replies for Fancy Display) 216 Replies

GenTime: 0.0895 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2019 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff