Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[He Rides A White Horse]

We'll see.

[Dimensio]

I don't think he's worth dealing with. He's clearly absolutely paranoid and delusional.

[Stultis]

There is nothing I've said about you that is a lie.

[He Rides A White Horse]

....but I do want to thank you for supporting my position.....I'm not familiar with that compound, but it appears your 'humanitarian' agenda rears it's ugly head, yet again. You would mock the poor individuals suffering from whatever illness that compound is intended to help. My people don't treat the sick or infirm as you obviously would.

Just like your Nazi friends.

[Uri’el-2012]

So you're saying that it's acceptable to post lies as justification for your hope?

You seem to have difficulty parsing the English language.

I posted no lies.

b'shem Y'shua

[Stultis]

[Dimensio]

I posted no lies.

You referenced a passage allegedly from Josepheus that is widely regarded by educated scholars (and this includes Christian scholars) as a fake that was inserted centuries after Josepheus died. Then you tried to justify presenting false passages as fact.

You must use a different definition of "lie" than most people. Then again, lots of creationists seem to have that problem.

[RunningWolf]

The general theme seems to be if Demented dimi baby declares a thing not true and you proceed as it is, then you are a liar.

In other words, a Dimi-Centric and Dimi-Ascendtant POV of the world.

Wolf

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>I posted no lies.

D>You referenced a passage allegedly from Josepheus that is widely regarded
by educated scholars (and this includes Christian scholars) as a fake
that was inserted centuries after Josepheus died. Then you tried to justify presenting false passages as fact.

You must use a different definition of "lie" than most people.
Then again, lots of creationists seem to have that problem.

2,047 posted on 12/21/2005 8:21:04 PM MST by Dimensio

You seem to use sweeping generalization about anyone with whom you disagree

First, there seems to be some anti Messianic missionaries who cast doubt on Josephus.
It does not seem to be widely regarded by educated scholars as a fake.
There are many lost souls who will attempt to debunk all reference to Y'shua.

You seem to be in that number of lost souls desperately trying to not accept Y'shua as L-rd.

1 Peter 3:9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with
blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

1 Peter 3:10 For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep
his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech.

1 Peter 3:11 He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it.

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are
attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” [Psalm 34:12-16]

1 Peter 3:13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?

1 Peter 3:14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are
blessed. “Do not fear what they fear; [Or not fear their
threats] do not be frightened.” [Isaiah 8:12]

You are in my prayers.

b'shem Y'shua

[Uri’el-2012]

The general theme seems to be if Demented dimi baby declares a thing not true and you proceed as it is, then you are a liar.

In other words, a Dimi-Centric and Dimi-Ascendtant POV of the world.

Wolf

Thank you for the support.

Blessings on you

b'shem Y'shua

[RunningWolf]

Thank you and its much appreciated, I need them all.

Wolf might be a mess, but he knows who his lord is.

What these people cannot envision is a world or universe where he finally says 'You do not want me I will go away' I would rather suffer sextillion lives than be told "I never knew you"

Wolf

[Uri’el-2012]

bump that

[Havoc]

I'm not dealing with what I don't know was there. I'm also not dealing with what I don't know was not there. That's the difference between us. I can postulate possibilities without
framing them as the truth of the matter. Mere possibility doesn't make it so. In absence of the facts and conditions, guessing is not the only option. Saying "I don't know" is an option and one I prefer to pontificating on what you and I both are ignorant of. It isn't my version vs. yours. It's my approach vs. yours that is the issue here. And many of you can't simply shut up when you don't know.

[Havoc]

The point is we could calculate the energy output of the sun and the amount reaching the earth based on the speed of light at the time.

No, the point is that neither of us know the conditions in which it all happened. Neither of us can therefore speak to the variability. Just as neither of us can say that the states have been constant. You can argue hypotheticals all you wish. That doesn't deal with a situation that you don't know the condition of. And that is the problem to start out with. To defend your assumptives, you start off on another assumptive and heap upon it one assumption after another about the conditions in which you'll run a hypothetical test case in regard to the point. Assumption is the error to begin with.. So to solve the problem, you compound it!!

[He Rides A White Horse]

That's it.....let the mean spiritness shine through. You prove my point with every post you make. More lies from you and your friends; yeah, we're imagining things, and I'm paranoid about your true intentions......and you wonder why I am saying the things about you. I'll tell you why; because everything I've said is true.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Nuvox Communications.......is that where you work, Stultis (smiling)

[He Rides A White Horse]

Viewing the source of post 2043 yields some string incorporating "Terry Schiavo"....take a look everybody; what's Terry Schiavo got to do with a man in a rubber room...her supporters perhaps?

[Stultis]

because everything I've said is true

[b_sharp]

What assumptions are you referring to?

All I did was suggest that a bit of calculus could determine initial heat conditions given the speculation that the speed of light was faster in the past and has been slowing down. Are you suggesting that we can not make those calculations?

It was a simple 'what if' exercise to show the mathematically derived consequences of using those creationist speculations. As far as I can tell, the only 'assumptions' I've used were contributions from creationists.

If you see other assumptions there could you point them out?

I do understand that you are trying to convey the idea that it is impossible to 'know' what occurred in the past, to know initial conditions at the time of 'creation' and thus can not be sure which conclusion is correct. In this view, creationism and the current Cosmological ideas of the start of the universe are equally likely.

In that case, if we can not 'know' the past, why bother with the scientific investigation of the past at all?

The answer is of course that what happened in the past can affect the present, and can help us predict what may happen in the future. If those predictions are born out, then the probability that those assumptions we made about the past are correct increases. Even if the probability never reaches 1, the closer we get to 1 the better equipped we are to predict the future. Science is about making errors, correcting them and then trying again. In this way our knowledge of the past becomes more and more accurate over time.

[VadeRetro]

I'm not dealing with what I don't know was there. I'm also not dealing with what I don't know was not there. That's the difference between us. I can postulate possibilities without framing them as the truth of the matter.

You are also not dealing with the difficulties of imagining your "possibilities" being the truth of the matter.

Mere possibility doesn't make it so.

Impossibility does tend to make it not so, however. The problems I raised for your canopy as a mitigator of hyperactive decay rates would have to be addressed before anyone would it seriously.

Saying "I don't know" is an option and one I prefer to pontificating on what you and I both are ignorant of.

Fine. You don't have a clue. You just wanted to wave some old YEC nonsense around to see if it would fool anybody.

And many of you can't simply shut up when you don't know.

We have established you are utterly ignorant here or you might have anticipated an objection or two. So when do you shut up?