Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth

[KILLER_CLOWN]

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Want to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Here's how you would do so by scientific means. I wonder why this hasn't been done by any Creationism proponents?

I see a stuttering idiot that cracks jokes albeit very slowly and offers up no scientific evidence whatsoever.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I actually started to answer that question. Then I looked at how you've been responding to everyone in this thread, and I realized that you're not interested in having a real discussion about this. Nobody can possibly be as dense as you are pretending to be. You're obviously trolling, and I've decided not to waste any more time on you.

So in other words you have nothing, carry on then.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

After this flood how did Kangaroos get to Australia? How did Galapagos turtles get to their islands?

Dinosaurs: If people lived alongside dinosaurs why have no dinosaur fossils ever been found above the K-T boundary? Why have no humans or hominids ever been found below the K-T boundary?

Your first question really has no bearing on this conversation.

The answer to your second question is here..

http://www.icr.org/article/5329/

How did we get here? I have asked all of you evolution zealots and haven't received an answer yet.

[Fish]

Science always prevails over ignorance. Always has, and always will. In due time.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Science always prevails over ignorance. Always has, and always will. In due time.

I agree at some point all these idiotic cult evolutionists will someday see how silly they looked. We have Theories you know!

[Fish]

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Richard Dawkins is WINNING!!!



Creationists look up to the creator while the cult of evolution looks at Dawkins as their savior. Hmmm......

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Again, it's just my opinion, but the Bible for me isn't the living word of God. For me, the Bible is the word of men trying to tell part of the story of God to an audience with limited ability to understand in their own times and places using their own similarly limited languages, and scientific and cultural tools. Certainly it's a history of God, and it's important to know the history of anything you want to know more deeply in the present.

However, for me, the word of God is the living Christ who communicates with me through the Holy Spirit. Sometimes he uses the Bible to communicate with me (I don't want to give you the impression that I don't value the wisdom contained therein), but sometimes I'm led to believe that parts of those books are true for some people some of the time, and not true for others at other times.

Great is the mystery of faith.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

So in other words you have nothing, carry on then.

You're coming very close to going full Billay in this thread.

Billay destroyed any credibility he had as a poster when he got caught stalking Phobia in real life and then repeatedly lied about it. Now, whenever he posts, most people don't even bother to read his bullshit, and nobody gives a shit what he thinks about anything. He's the board bitch and he doesn't even know it. He just keeps posting, hoping that people will eventually forget what a douchebag loser he is.

You're also reaching a point where it will be impossible for anyone to take you seriously. Your offense obviously isn't anywhere near as egregious as Billay's, because you're not doing anything malicious, but you are making yourself look like a fool. Whenever you post a take on any other subject, people are going to remember that you're just the idiotic creationist, and they're not going to take you seriously.

The best thing you could do is just drop it and hope that people eventually forget the idiocy you've displayed in this thread.

It's too late for Billay. It may not be too late for you.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Richard Dawkins is WINNING!!!


Creationists look up to the creator while the cult of evolution looks at Dawkins as their savior. Hmmm......

Referring to evolution as a cult while being a member of a cult is irony at its finest. To state that Dawkins is looked upon as a savior is either a feeble attempt at humor, or a grotesque misunderstanding of evolution. People who do not follow a belief system that claims to know the thoughts and intentions of a creator do not need saviors. They do not believe the universe will be suspended on their behalf, nor do they believe anyone who disagrees with them will be tortured for eternity. They do believe as Christopher Hitchens once said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Your first question really has no bearing on this conversation.

In other words you couldn't find a pseudo scientific article to answer these questions.

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

The answer to your second question is here..

http://www.icr.org/article/5329/

How did we get here? I have asked all of you evolution zealots and haven't received an answer yet.

That article is just bad. I don't have time or desire to break it all down for you because it won't be read anyways. But briefly first of the K-T boundary is 65 million years old. So unless you have something that proves carbon dating and other techniques are fraudulent and the layer is only thousands of years old then the entire premise is all bs anyways. (here comes an article no doubt). Also, all the sources with the supposed "right" answers come from publications with clear agendas. They are not reputable.

And about evolution, you have shown such a basic misunderstanding of it as well as no desire to read and attempt to comprehend what is written that it is not worth anyone's time. It is too complex to just type in a paragraph or two and nobody wants to waste their time giving you information that will not be read, and instead will be summed up by asking a completely ridiculous, perhaps intentionally stupid question such as "so you are saying we evolved from rocks?"

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Again, it's just my opinion, but the Bible for me isn't the living word of God. For me, the Bible is the word of men trying to tell part of the story of God to an audience with limited ability to understand in their own times and places using their own similarly limited languages, and scientific and cultural tools. Certainly it's a history of God, and it's important to know the history of anything you want to know more deeply in the present.

However, for me, the word of God is the living Christ who communicates with me through the Holy Spirit. Sometimes he uses the Bible to communicate with me (I don't want to give you the impression that I don't value the wisdom contained therein), but sometimes I'm led to believe that parts of those books are true for some people some of the time, and not true for others at other times.

Great is the mystery of faith.

I watched a really great documentary discussing the "idolatry" of fundamentalists for the Bible (I wish I could remember the name of it now, but I can't). One of the analogies that stood out for me was when it said that the Bible is a telescope through which you see God. Then it went on to say that, unfortunately, some groups choose to worship the telescope instead of God.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

In other words you couldn't find a pseudo scientific article to answer these questions.



That article is just bad. I don't have time or desire to break it all down for you because it won't be read anyways. But briefly first of the K-T boundary is 65 million years old. So unless you have something that proves carbon dating and other techniques are fraudulent and the layer is only thousands of years old then the entire premise is all bs anyways. (here comes an article no doubt). Also, all the sources with the supposed "right" answers come from publications with clear agendas. They are not reputable.

And about evolution, you have shown such a basic misunderstanding of it as well as no desire to read and attempt to comprehend what is written that it is not worth anyone's time. It is too complex to just type in a paragraph or two and nobody wants to waste their time giving you information that will not be read, and instead will be summed up by asking a completely ridiculous, perhaps intentionally stupid question such as "so you are saying we evolved from rocks?"

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Referring to evolution as a cult while being a member of a cult is irony at its finest. To state that Dawkins is looked upon as a savior is either a feeble attempt at humor, or a grotesque misunderstanding of evolution. People who do not follow a belief system that claims to know the thoughts and intentions of a creator do not need saviors. They do not believe the universe will be suspended on their behalf, nor do they believe anyone who disagrees with them will be tortured for eternity. They do believe as Christopher Hitchens once said “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

I've admitted mine is based on belief, you need to pay attention. My point is that Evolution is absolutely a religion that requires GIANT leaps of faith, moreso than biblical text.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

blah blah.

I have put my views out there, thus far you can't even answer one question.