Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 20 of 349 (627023)
07-24-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
07-24-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Gish Gallop & Confinement
Buzsaw writes:
Unlike Hovind, I'm not a YEC. However, IMO, were it not for his creationist ideology Hovind would have been out on parole by now.
Unlike Hovind, I'm not a YEC either. However, IMO, his incarceration is completely unaffected by his beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 07-24-2011 10:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2011 10:57 AM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 28 of 349 (627031)
07-24-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by fearandloathing
07-24-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Gish Gallop & Confinement
fearandloathing writes:
I don't think Buzz knows that Kent has other cases pending, not sure what though. I was wondering why they had him in administrative segregation and now believe I know why now. I think it is common practice to do that to prisoners with cases pending, I could be wrong.
I was more trying to balance Buz's unevidenced opinion with another unevidenced opinion. (I think I need one more unevidenced opinion to win.)
fearandloathing writes:
I thought this blog of his is rather amusing, he whines alot about how bad it is.
I bet he used to complain about prisons being like holiday camps...
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2011 10:57 AM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 54 of 349 (627057)
07-26-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dawn Bertot
07-26-2011 4:53 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Dawn Bertot writes:
...and how does the TOE interfere with the proposition of creationism or ID?
Aaaww...do you not know?
Or are you being dishonest?
quote:
8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-26-2011 4:53 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 78 of 349 (627081)
07-30-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 9:07 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Dawn Bertot writes:
Nobody is paying attention to your tantrums, but we pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments
jar writes:
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Dawn Bertot writes:
*nothing*
We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 9:07 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 9:40 PM Panda has not replied
 Message 82 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 9:43 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 349 (627091)
07-30-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 9:43 PM


Re: Debating creationists
jar writes:
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Dawn Bertot writes:
*nothing*
We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 9:43 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 89 of 349 (627092)
07-30-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dawn Bertot
07-30-2011 10:01 PM


Re: Debating creationists
Dawn Bertot writes:
give this man the ability, time and skills to accomplish such a task
It doesn't take much ability to find at least one point you have studiously avoiding answering.
Jar has posted it several times.
I have posted it several times.
I'll post it again...
jar writes:
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Dawn Bertot writes:
*nothing*
We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-30-2011 10:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 100 of 349 (627103)
07-31-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 12:11 AM


Re: Debating creationists
IamJoseph writes:
Of note you have not referred to the only known and proven factor for re-pro: the host seed output!
I put "host seed output" into google and only got one result: a message posted by you on this forum.
Why do you think that we will understand terminology that is not even in google?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 2:04 AM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 111 of 349 (627114)
07-31-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 2:04 AM


Re: Debating creationists
IamJoseph writes:
How would you describe it?
So - I say that your terminology is unknown to me (and google) and your response is to ask me what I think your terminology means?
Do you truly think that your English is understandable?
Why do you not believe us when we say that your English makes little sense?
How many people would it take for you to accept that your grasp of English is very confused?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 2:04 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 9:49 AM Panda has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 156 of 349 (627159)
07-31-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
07-31-2011 10:17 PM


Re: Logic dermands
Dawn Bertot writes:
Amazing, how is it you get away with no actual debating, no attempts at rebuttal and you are not required to address any issues involved in anyones posts, responses, questions or challenges
You have no intention of debating. Maybe someone else in the form of a debator will pick up where you failed to start.
We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-31-2011 10:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 162 of 349 (627165)
07-31-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Logic dermands
IamJoseph writes:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURE - ACTUALLY. IT IS THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC PREMISE EVER DEVISED - IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 11:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:00 AM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 166 of 349 (627169)
08-01-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Logic dermands
IamJoseph writes:
I am not at all into any theology; I mention sections of Genesis only in an emperical mode. But I did more than just saying it - that is your position which I merely tried to point out. The scientific cause & effect premise is with Creationism; what have you got - name a scientific premise, as cause and effect cannot be allocated to a self propagating stream of nothingness as its alternative.
Proof and dis-proof cannt apply to any of those two premises and is thus neutralized. We are left with only one alternative from a science POV: a complexity is the result of a source of wisdom, intentional and purposeful - else it is not borne of wisdom or intelligence; this is the reason I find Genesis more plausable; namely the cause and effect for a complexity is more aligned with a source of transcendent wisdom, than random selection. One of those premises is not scientific, yet widely accepted as such. Someone is telling fibs here, and passing it off as science! But scence itself is a post-universe phenomenon which never existed at one time: how could it when there was nothing around to apply science to?
Very well said [clapping hands enthusiastically]. But that's all you did. Saying so is not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:10 AM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 168 of 349 (627171)
08-01-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 6:10 AM


Re: Logic dermands
IamJoseph writes:
Pls tell us why nature is more scientific than a creator? Note that physical proof and the observance of an already working system cannot be put forth as a valid reasoning. IOW, you cannot say the sun gives energy and sustains life as the causative factor supporting nature: these are mere observances, not evidences, which can more easily be allocated to a creator.
You are the one making claims - it is your job to provide evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 6:10 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 189 of 349 (627274)
08-01-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
08-01-2011 6:03 PM


Re: Logic demands
Dawn Bertot writes:
And your a coward an never make an attempt at a rebuttal. Why you think people dont notice that is beyond me
And you're a coward and never make an attempt at supporting your stupid assertions. Why you think that people don't notice is beyond me.
There is evidence of natural causes.
Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.
Until you present evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes you have nothing.
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
We pay very close attention to your unwillingness to respond specifically to presented arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-01-2011 6:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 349 (627339)
08-02-2011 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dawn Bertot
08-01-2011 11:19 PM


Re: Logic demands
Dawn Bertot writes:
One such as yourself cannot be taken seriously if you do not respond to my posts and the particular arguments therein. Let me know when your are ready to be something other than a parrot
One, such as yourself, cannot be taken seriously if you do not respond to our posts and the particular arguments therein. Let us know when you are ready to be something other than a parrot.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-01-2011 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 206 of 349 (627384)
08-02-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by frako
08-02-2011 8:25 AM


He thinks that the anti-christ was born in 1935 - which means that the antichrist should be far into his retirement.
Phew - that's a relief.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by frako, posted 08-02-2011 8:25 AM frako has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024