Kent Hovind

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.

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.

fearandloathing writes:I thought this blog of his is rather amusing, he whines alot about how bad it is.

Dawn Bertot writes:...and how does the TOE interfere with the proposition of creationism or ID?

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*

jar writes:Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.

Dawn Bertot writes:*nothing*

Dawn Bertot writes:give this man the ability, time and skills to accomplish such a task

jar writes:Please present the evidence of the creator or the method used by that critter to influence evolution.

Dawn Bertot writes:*nothing*

IamJoseph writes:Of note you have not referred to the only known and proven factor for re-pro: the host seed output!

IamJoseph writes:How would you describe it?

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 challengesYou have no intention of debating. Maybe someone else in the form of a debator will pick up where you failed to start.

IamJoseph writes:THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURE - ACTUALLY. IT IS THE MOST UN-SCIENTIFIC PREMISE EVER DEVISED - IF TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

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?

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.

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

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