Forum.freehovind.com - All http://forum.freehovind.com/browse-t-Ellman-ppage-25 en-us ATIServer 473 0 25 <![CDATA[Discussion: Who Will Ben/Sci-borg/Ron's evil bro/Attorney, Return as Next? - I know Ben can't wait to sock-puppet his way in here. ]]> (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 ]]>
Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:28:06 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Sci-borg the "FAKE" doctor of science - Show us your credentials faker?]]> "doctor of science"? YA RIGHT. Every time we asked you about your credentials you dont tell us. so maybe you could prove us wrong tell us what kind of doctor you are and post your credentials as proof. AND you can tell us who you work for in the scientific field if you want anyone to take you serious. Then challenge Hovind to a PUBLIC debate for when he gets out. yes, or you can challenge eric. Eric is on you tube all the time. show him up. challenge him on you tube. as proof i ask that you put put a u tube video, then post it on this site with your proof in the video (name and school you went to also) and challenge to Eric Hovind "so that you can reveal his lies" as you once said he does. WELL Ben "the rationalist" (accountant)/Sci-borg "The (fake) doctor of Science/Ron'sevilbro "the Attorney"/thedude? are you going to challenge him publicly like a real scientist would you FAKER? (Thanks Ben for finally admitting that you're a fake at the end. took you long enough.)]]> Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:21:43 +0000 <![CDATA[Discussion: Typical Creationist Science Class]]> Class in Unison: "In the beginning.."
Teacher: Okay..that completes science class. Any questions.?
Mary: How old is the Earth?
Teacher: 6000 years old...
Mary: How do we know?
Teacher. Says so right here in the good book. God is so smart.
Billy: Why are there mountains? My Nobel Prize winning Geologist Father says it is because of something called Plate Tectonics.
Teacher: Well....was your father there when the moutains were created?.. No??.. Well.. the answer is...god did it. Billy....go see Father Fealmi for your punishment.
Billy: AGAIN????? (Walks strangely out of room)
Johnny Sagan: My dad Carl, says that the earth revolves around the sun....Is that True?
Teacher. Has your father ever been so far away from the earh and sun that he can observe that???? No? Johnny....the bible says the earth is the center of everthing. So?????
Johnny: Go see Father Fealmi????
Teacher: Yes...but give him 20 minutes.
Suzy: Where do rainbows come from:
Teacher: God did it
Chris: Why do we get sick?
Teacher: God is punishing you....but not like Billy and Johnny are being punished.
Tiffany: Why does it rain?
Teacher: God makes the rain?
Tiffany: How does he do that?
Teacher: God can do anything..I think he just snaps his fingers but don't try to figure everything out... that is what happened to Eve.
Tina: Why is our DNA so closely related to the DNA of other primates. Isn't it true that our chromosone 2 is the fusion of 2 of thier chromosones.
Teacher: TINA!!!!!! Where did you hear that word? DNA is a myth created by the Devil or God to test your faith. NEVER use the word DNA, the scientific word is God Juice. Tina....see me after class.
(Billy comes back into class, Johnny leaves)
Teacher: Any more questions?
Billy: Why do we find single cell organisms in the oldest levels of the geologic column, followed by multicellular organisms in the next level, followed by species of fish, reptiles, etc.?
Teacher: Well, for this i have 3 answers Billy. 1) The Geologic Column is a myth created by the Devil or God to test your faith. 2) Noah's flood put them that way or 3) God did it.
Teacher: Okay class... I am handing out your final test. Please pass them back. There are 20 multiple choice questions. You have 20 minutes.
(Mary raises her hand)
Teacher: Mary, you have a question?
Mary: On the test...???? The ONLY answer to all 20 questions is "God did it"
Teacher: EXACTLY Mary... you have been paying attention.
]]>
Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:00:24 +0000
<![CDATA[How to debunk evolution]]> How to Discredit the Theory of Evolution Advice for believer
-CHRISTIAN WRIGHT

If ever you find yourself in a debate with an evolutionist, be aware that your opponent might attempt to seduce you with “facts” and “science.” He* will point toward a variety of “evidence,” and state that the community of “real” scientists around the globe overwhelmingly believes that the theory of evolution is a fact.

You must resist!

Instead, commit yourself fervently to spreading the truth of Creation—even though most evolutionists obviously don’t want to hear it. That’s okay. Remember that every minute you can keep an evolutionist busy in a debate is another minute in which he can’t be spewing his foul mistruths to those who might believe him. In that sense, even though it might appear to be a waste of time, you are, in fact, doing God’s work.

Of course, before you enter into this sort of discussion, it pays to be prepared. You have a duty to present the case for Creation in a sensible, logical manner. To that end, below are a few talking points that can help you achieve a resounding victory.

However, before we continue, a quick aside: there are some Christians who insist that Creation and evolution are somehow compatible, that they can coexist peacefully, side by side, in a melding of God and science. If you buy into that misconception, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But keep in mind that this view is akin to denouncing Genesis altogether, and, as a result, you will burn for eternity in the fire of a thousand suns.

Now that we have that unpleasantness out of the way, here are several rebuttals that will help you prove the case for Creation.

  • Point out that evolution is just a theory.
  • This will really upset your opponent and throw him off balance. He will respond by saying that the word theory as it is defined in the field of science is quite different than the everyday usage of the word. Ridicule this foolish rationalization by asking if the word dinosaur has two different meanings. Say that, as far as you’re concerned, theory has the same meaning as guess or hunch. Would they call it a “theory” if it were really true?

  • Mention Darwin’s deathbed conversion to Christianity.
  • Say that the father of evolution recanted everything. Say that he finally saw the light and realized that all of his work had been heresy. He accepted Christ and is now in the loving arms of God. Your opponent won’t like hearing these things, and he’ll deny them bitterly. He’ll say that this “conversion story” is nothing but an unfounded rumor that has circulated for a hundred years. But since evolutionists are so big on proving things, ask if he has any evidence to deny your claim. You’re right until he can prove you wrong.

  • Insist that humans couldn’t have come from monkeys.
  • Evolutionists will agree with you on this one. They’ll say, instead, that man and monkeys came from a common apelike ancestor, but this ancestor wasn’t actually a monkey. To rebut this, all you have to do is whip out some pictures of these common ancestors. Anybody can plainly see that they are monkeys. They’re covered in hair! As a coup de grace, say that if we teach our children that they came from monkeys, they’ll act like monkeys. How could anyone argue in favor of children who behave like monkeys?

  • Ask how life could arise from nothing.
  • Life just sprang up from the mud on its own? Poppycock! The only feasible explanation is a Creator. Any logical mind can see that. Your opponent will start ranting about something called “abiogenesis,” which, admittedly, isn’t easy to understand. But that’s a point in your favor! After all, isn’t the idea that God created everything much easier to follow? Of course it is! And that is all the proof you really need. At this point, if he still has his wits about him, he’ll likely say that the origin of life is a different topic—that evolution doesn’t concern itself with the beginnings of life, only the changes in the inherited traits in a population of organisms over time. Which means you can scorn him for being evasive.

  • Claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
  • Even if you don’t understand this particular law, it’s a good thing to throw into the conversation. If he attempts to explain how you’re wrong, just shake your head and say, “Good try, but I’m not buying it.”

  • Remind him that a bacterium can’t turn into an elephant.
  • The theory of evolution includes something called “macroevolution,” which attempts to explain how new species can form from old ones. It claims that simple life-forms can turn into more complex life-forms, but it takes millions of years and involves all sorts of strange mutations. Imagine how ridiculous that is! This phenomenon has never been observed, and isn’t science about observation? Macroevolution is just too hard to comprehend, so how can it possibly be true?

  • Question the gaps in the fossil record.
  • Ask him why scientists haven’t discovered transitional forms, especially fossils that prove the emergence of new species from old ones. Your evolutionist friend will say that you are wrong, that we have found examples of such fossils. Simply say, “Got one on you?” If he drags you to a computer and shows you a purported example, remind him that it would be easy for a trickster to create a fake fossil. In fact, this would be a good time to point out that God might have created all of these so-called fossils in an effort to test our faith.

  • Turn the tables on him.
  • Make sure you call his beliefs “dogmatic” before he gets a chance to use that label on you.

  • Cite the ultimate source of evidence: the Bible.
  • Tell him that all he has to do is read Genesis and he’ll see that God was behind all of Creation, not something called “evolution” with its voodoo systems of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” The truth is right there in scripture, available to anyone who is willing to read it with an open mind. Evolutionists might argue that there is a mountain of evidence in their favor, but remember that faith can move a mountain.

Christian Wright is the alter ego of an author and essayist living near Austin, Texas. While some might consider his religious views offensive, unwelcome, hypocritical, and possibly even oppressive, he feels that it is his sacred duty to share them with anyone who will listen—and many who won’t.]]>
Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:45:38 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Why The Religious Right must be Stopped]]> A quote from Mr. Hovind's blog on CES:
 
"Pitiful to see such a faithful servant of the Lord imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Looking forward to the day when the government will do what the Lord wants and not what the citizens want."
 
This is what they want.  A totalitarian dictatorship.
]]>
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:06:53 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Good Reason To Not Debate ronnie Online]]> ...because when he loses debates online, he likes to accuse his opponents of being pedophiles:
 
dude sorry but i was kind of thinkin the same thing a while back that some of these guys sound like chesters
 
 
And a few posts down, after being asked what a "chester" is, ronnie posted this:
 
it's a slang word were i come from.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chester
 
...with the link providing the definition of "a term for a pedophile."
 
]]>
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:48:44 +0000
<![CDATA[Behold the Croco-duck! - or duck-crocodile if you may]]> Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:54:34 +0000 <![CDATA[Discussion: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online 'cont.' - Evolutionists want to waist your time to keep you from God's will.]]>
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"

]]>
Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:22:01 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: No. We Came From Blob-like-creatures...then maggots - http://www.icr.org/article/5550/]]> by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The blob lives. Or at least, it has been reconstructed in a three-dimensional computer model.

Researchers at Imperial College London cut a fossil into 200 pieces and scanned each piece into a computer to build the model. The tiny three-millimeter-long fossilized creature has been named Drakozoon but looks like a "blob."1 It was found in strata near the bottom of the rock record, so it interests those who believe that fossilized organisms found at that depth evolved into today's creatures.

A college press release described the creature as jelly-like and roughly cone-shaped, with a tough exterior that included a hood. Its retractable tentacles held out particle-catching fans for feeding. It was entombed in sediment while its stalk was still attached to a small-shelled marine creature called a brachiopod (which looks the same as its modern counterparts).

An online video on the Imperial College website shows the 3D image of the Drakozoon created by the research team. The press release declared that "the model is helping researchers to understand what primitive species on early Earth looked like and how they might have evolved into the types of creatures that are on Earth today."1

So, into what did the blob evolve? Some researchers observed traces of what appeared to be segments in the form of eight body grooves. If it did have a segmented body, then according to evolutionary reckoning it could have been the ancestor or descendant of other segmented creatures, like earthworms or trilobites.

However, worm burrows have been found in much older rock layers,2 as well as in the same British limestone as the Drakozoon. Trilobites are well-known segmented arthropods of the Cambrian, which is below the Drakozoon layer, and tiny tracks presumably made by segmented creatures were also found beneath the Cambrian.3

These potential descendants lived long before their presumed blob ancestor. Actually, there is no way to tell from just fossils whether or not any similar-looking creature was an ancestor or descendant, so finding segments on this particular fossil adds more confusion than clarity to any related evolutionary story.

But not all agree that the grooves represent segments. "Others think that their bodies were structured in more free-form ways, similar to slugs."1 So, despite the press release's optimistic tone, the details of the data do not clarify the blob's status on the evolutionary tree. Of course, this would be expected if this creature was created as a stand-alone organism, not as part of a continuum of gradually morphing creatures as Darwin's followers imagine it.

Darwin once explained the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record by saying, "No organism wholly soft can be preserved."4 He reasoned that most of the transitions occurred in soft parts, which he thought were not fossilized. But the blob was a soft organism.

In fact, the Drakozoon was discovered six years ago in the "Herefordshire Lagerst���¤tte, one of England's richest deposits of soft-bodied fossils."1 Punctuated by layers of volcanic ash, this deposit consists of mud that hardened rapidly to entomb an array of soft-bodied marine creatures, including sponges and delicate microscopic radiolarians.

The Imperial College press release stated, "The researchers say it is very rare to find ancient soft bodied creatures intact because they normally decompose before they can be preserved in sediment."1 When compared to the high volume of shelled creatures like clams in the fossil record, soft bodies are certainly rare. However, their impressions, casts, footprints, molds and mineralized whole bodies are constantly surfacing in scientific journal reports. Sponge embryos, jellyfish, squid, brains, and many other soft-body fossils have been found. These squarely refute Darwin's assertion.

But even more remarkable are the over 50 unique fossil caches around the world that have provided original soft tissue samples--skin, collagen, and blood vessels--of birds, mammals, and dinosaurs.5

While fossilized soft parts are rare, they should not exist at all if today's slow processes are the only options available to explain the past. And although original soft tissue is even rarer, it should have completely decayed long ago if the earth's rock layers are actually as old as their evolutionarily assigned dates indicate.

Instead, it is clear from both the fossil record--including the soft-bodied Drakozoon--and the Bible's record that earth's history did not consist of vast ages of slow-and-gradual events. Instead, it was characterized by recent and short-lived major and minor catastrophes.

References
http://www.icr.org/article/5550/ ]]>
Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:17:20 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Did We Come From Maggot-Like-Creatures? - Fossil of Rare Armor-Plated Worm-Like Creature Discovered in Canada's Capital.]]>

http://www.besse.at/sms/evolutn.html]]>
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:45:22 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Physicist Questions Gravity's Existence - University of Amsterdams string theorist Erik Verlinde questions gravity.]]> by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Does gravity exist?

While few would deny that objects attract at-a-distance, some physicists are questioning whether or not this universally observed effect is caused by a stand-alone force called "gravity." The root causes of this well-established law are still not understood by science. If something this basic can be called into question, how should this affect one's confidence in other widely-held scientific claims like "evolution is a fact"?

In a landmark paper that is causing a stir in the world of theoretical physics, University of Amsterdam string theorist Erik Verlinde provided a totally new perspective for understanding the effect that has been called gravity. He is convinced that it is not an independent force at all.

If it's not, that would be good news for scientists such as famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking who have spent lifetimes trying in vain to merge the fundamental formulas that express gravity and electromagnetism into a single "theory of everything."

Instead, Verlinde posits that gravity results from objects that had been stretched apart from one another and are just relaxing back into more "comfortable" positions. In this view, "Newton's law of gravity emerges in a surprisingly simple fashion."1 He told The New York Times, "We've known for a long time gravity doesn't exist. It's time to yell it."2

Reactions to Verlinde's proposal provide an interesting contrast to the reception provided to certain others who've been willing to examine scientific presuppositions. In countless conversations around the world, people with sincere questions about evolution's particles-became-people story have been accused of being as ignorant as someone who would question gravity. Now, Verlinde has actually questioned gravity and yet is being treated to serious consideration rather than demeaning personal attacks.

The difference may be that those who have heard of Verlinde's pioneering work are actually thinking about what he has said, instead of dismissing it before even giving it a serious look. Some physicists believe that Verlinde's model is brilliant, while others admit they do not understand it or do not believe it will prove accurate. But in all cases, they are considering Verlinde's proposal.

The formulas used to defend his thesis are elegant and persuasive. In his paper--posted on a Cornell University website that houses technical papers and peer comments--Verlinde used the analogy of a long, loose strand with one end tethered to a fixed point to illustrate his concept that gravity is just a byproduct of thermodynamics.1

Imagine the strand so loose that its shape randomizes into something like a wadded-up spaghetti noodle. Then somebody gathers the wad and straightens out a portion of it by pulling it away from its attachment point. After it is let go, the strand randomizes again, its increasing crinkles causing it to shrink back toward the object to which it is attached. In a similar manner, the apparent force drawing objects together is just the effect of the space between those objects randomizing, curling up, and pulling inward.

His theory has already been applied by other physicists to successfully solve certain problems in physics.3 Whether or not gravity is an independent, fundamental force in the cosmos or just the consequence of thermodynamics, as Verlinde and a growing cadre of physicists are thinking, the fact that the basics of a phenomenon so universally observed as gravity are still being discussed seems remarkable in the face of all the bluster that science holds all the answers.

A physicist has provided a radical re-think on the fundamentals of gravity, accompanied by sound reason and solid observations. And physicists are listening. In a profession dedicated to finding accurate explanations, it should hold equally true that when a biologist provides a radical re-think of Darwinian origins--also accompanied by sound reason and solid observations--his or her case should also be heard.4

http://www.icr.org/article/5548/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29]]>
Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:14:44 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Oh YA?!!! Take this!!! - Gotcha!!!!!]]> Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:01:17 +0000 <![CDATA[Discussion: The source of ronnie & mikewolf's political views?]]>  
After seeing this video, all of ronnie & Mikewolf's ramblings suddenly make sense. I can't think of a better counterpart to Hovind's views on science than the political/social views of a former pro-wrestler who had his name legally changed to "Warrior".
 
(The video is about an hour long, jump to the 35 minute mark to see where he really starts going off the rails)
]]>
Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:02:40 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Eric Hovind's new blog and cheating poll - Eric Hovind's new blog and cheating poll]]> Recently, Kent's old web site, drdino.com, got a makeover and Eric is now running along with blog postings.
 
It will be interesting to see how long he blogs compared his previous blog at http://erichovind.blogspot.com/.
 
Also, there was a poll on whether evolution was a religion, a fact or a reasonable scientific theory. It was "pharyngulated" and the poll was changed to about creation.
]]>
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:45:17 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Why are all Pedophiles Christians?]]> "It is now an established and obvious fact that the recently published Australian Pedophile and Sex Offender Index listed 'Clergy, Church and Religion related' as the largest identifiable group of offenders -- by almost twice the size of the next group." Court records since the publication of this references how the conviction of priests for child sex abuse is running at 4:1 to other occupations. This means that the church and religious orders in Australia could be producing up to approximately one-third of the nation's pedophiles. Warming to his argument, Swan points out "that if the same number of church-based pedophiles had come from the sex industry, a Parliamentary inquiry would have commenced years ago. The sex industry and the church both employ approximately 20,000 people in Australia. As it appears, the sex industry seems remarkable free of convicted pedophiles ... no prostitutes, X-Video producers or sex shop owners appeared on the Pedophile Index and none have been recorded in court records since."]]> Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:07:52 +0000 <![CDATA[Discussion: Wikipedia Under Investigation for Pedophilia - Wikipedia under investigation for supporting pedophilia. ]]>

FOX NEWS STORY: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/

EXCLUSIVE: Pedophiles Find a Home on Wikipedia


Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms.

Chat room posts show a clear effort by pedophiles to use Wikipedia, which can be accessed unfiltered in public schools across the country, to further their agenda. Message board posts often include links to specific Wikipedia articles that the participants say need to be edited to "normalize" pedophile behavior in the public eye and to recruit more pedophiles into their community.

�Pedophiles have campaigned to push their point of view that 'pedophilia is OK and doesn�t hurt children' on Wikipedia,� says Xavier Von Erck, director of the online pedophile watchdog organization Perverted Justice Foundation and Wikisposure.com, its offshoot project devoted to tracking pedophiles and pedophile activism on Wikipedia. �This has been a problem since Wikipedia started.�

In response to a request for comment on this story, Sue Gardner, executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization, said in a statement:

"Wikipedia has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false."
On April 22, a user with the screen name �apple� on the BoyChat message board posted a call for pedophiles around the world to start a Wikipedia article devoted to the author of a memoir described as �the life history of a lover of boys!!�

(BoyChat is a notorious, long-running online message board for adults who are attracted to underage boys.)

A user named �Drowning, not waving� replied in a post called �apple get that Wikipedia entry written�:

�IMO still the best autobiography written by a bl [boy lover]. A must read, despite (or because of) depicting a very different world to today's.

"And don't forget his Some Boys for a fleshier look at his interaction with the world.�

Three years ago, on Annabelleigh.net, an online message board for adults who are sexually attracted to prepubescent girls, a user named �student� outlined the campaign to use Wikipedia as a platform for activism and to recruit more pedophiles. (Annabelleigh, also called GirlChat, is the sister site to BoyChat.)

The Annabelle post, titled �Keep your eye on the prize,� read:

�The most important function Wikipedia serves is via the pedophilia articles themselves. It is important that they remain fair and unbiased. It is important that they continue to have external links to the support and activist community. The user pages are much less important.

"It is of the utmost importance that pedophiles newly daring to google "pedophile" or "pedophilia," or look them up directly in Wikipedia, in an effort to understand themselves better, are able to get unbiased information �. Many of these men and women are in dire need of support.

"Secondly, nonpedophiles who recognize the increasingly sensationalistic media treatment, etc., and turn to the Web to find the facts or people who use the Web as their primary source of information: If they turn to Wikipedia, Wikipedia should give a fair and balanced view. This community needs that to happen�.

"That should be the primary focus of our Wikipedia efforts. If you have to 'lie and hide' to keep our influence balanced against the bigots, then by all means lie and hide to do it. By all means, do not give up the fight to self-identify on the user pages, but make sure you do not let it stop you from editing!�

Wikipedia's critics point out that schools throughout the U.S. encourage students to do research on the online encyclopedia, which is free and available to anyone with an Internet connection. This means that students who use Wikipedia to research the academic subject of pedophilia will immediately find a page on the topic that is being targeted by the pedophiles. Wikipedia's "Pedophilia" page also is the first "hit" when you search the term in Google or Bing.

The article on pedophilia, in its suggestions for further reading, suggests other Wikipedia pages edited by pedophiles, including "Child Sexuality," and "NAMBLA," a page about the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That page links directly to NAMBLA's website, as do 25 other Wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia also has 32 external links to GirlChat, 14 to a Danish pro-pedophile website and 12 to BoyChat.

FoxNews.com also found hundreds of posts on BoyChat linking to Wikipedia pages, including "Child Sex Tourism," which provides detailed information on the different laws regarding child prostitution in countries around the world, and which links to newspaper articles that highlight �hotspots� like a section of Mexico City where child exploitation is rampant and unchecked by law enforcement. Other recent links were to Wikipedia pages named �Sexual Objectification," "Child Erotica" and �Simulated Child Pornography.�

These Wikipedia articles, edited and shared by pedophiles, are nothing but guideposts to get them aroused, says Hemanshu Nigam, who headed security divisions at Microsoft and MySpace and now runs SSP Blue, an online security consulting firm.

Posts on BoyChat also instruct participants to hide their identities and avoid being blocked by other users while editing pedophilia-related articles on Wikipedia.

Anyone can edit an article on Wikipedia as long as he follows Wikipedia�s principles of having a neutral point of view, which means the articles aren�t supposed to take sides on any issue and they must cite �verifiable, authoritative sources,� according to Wikipedia. Some pages are protected and can be edited only by volunteer administrators who have a certain number of edits and days editing under their belt, while other pages are fully protected and may be edited only by volunteer administrators or stewards voted on by the community. If someone makes an edit that other members of the community don�t approve, they can revert that edit or, in more drastic circumstances, nominate the entire page for deletion. The deletion request is then commented on by other members of the community until a consensus is reached. (Click here to see Wikipedia�s policies and guidelines page and here for the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.]

But an investigation by FoxNews.com shows that pedophiles are gaming this system, using their message boards to rally opposition and to sabotage attempts by other Wikipedia community members to rid the online encyclopedia of pro-pedophilia content.

For example a 2007 post on BoyChat calls on the pedophile community to vote against another user�s request to delete a Wikipedia page called �Marthijn Uittenbogaard,� named for the leader of a defunct Dutch political party that had three members and advocated for the legalization of sex between adults and children.

After the page was nominated for deletion by multiple Wikipedia users, a BoyChat user named �SqueakBox� wrote on the blog:

�Hysterical antiped lists Marthijn Uittenbogaard for wikipedia scrapheap!
"Get yer' votes in -"

The blog post concludes with a link to the Wikipedia page where the proposed deletion was being voted on.

The site remains active today.

Wikisposure has identified hundreds of convicted pedophiles and well-known pedophilia activists who have been members of Wikipedia�s community of volunteers who edit articles on the online encyclopedia. Some pedophiles active on Wikipedia have been sent to prison on charges relating to child pornography, according to Wikisposure, which has assisted in some of the investigations.

Von Erck, who uses a pseudonym, said a number of pedophiles have been kicked off the site, but many of them have returned using different usernames.

�The problem with it is you need to have a committed effort to deal with committed people who are devoted to pushing their propaganda online like pedophiles,� he said.

But Nigam, who is co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Group and sits on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said it's not that complicated. "Almost every other social networking site has taken steps to clean up their sites, except for Wikipedia," he said.

Nigam said Wikipedia is making a conscious choice to abandon its responsibility by hosting an online haven for pedophiles.

�It�s nothing more than a company that is choosing to ignore the worst kind of exploitation in the world,� he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/




]]>
Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:11:04 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Will Evolution Help me Grow Wings? - I'm growing a feather in my back! ]]> Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:28:58 +0000 <![CDATA[Discussion: Audio doesnt work right on Video, is there a workaround?]]> http://freehovind.com/watch-2146601419809292776
 
8 Answering Hank Hannagraf and answers in Genesis
 
its 53 minutes long, i have the volume at 100% and its barely audible, and very noisy
 
dont know if other videos are also not working, but is there a codec needed or ??
thanks
]]>
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:31:23 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Obama Hires Pedophile Supporter to His Administration. - Obama hires pedophile supporter Kevin Jennings to be his "safe school czar."]]>
If this isn't radical, I don't know what is. This story is from Coral Ridge Ministries.

CORAL RIDGE MINISTRIES NEWS



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 11, 2010



CONTACT:

Andrew Scott, (954) 334-5332, a.scott@crministries.org



Obama Administration Appointee Kevin Jennings Poised to Bring Pro-Homosexual Instruction to Schoolchildren — Details on February 14 Coral Ridge Hour National Broadcast



FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (February 11, 2010) –Pro-family experts caution on the February 14 Coral Ridge Hour TV show that Obama administration appointee Kevin Jennings, a prominent homosexual activist, is poised to bring pro-homosexual instruction to public schoolchildren nationwide.



Jennings is the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education. He also founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which advocates for acceptance of homosexuality among public school students.



“Jennings lives for one purpose,” said Janice Shaw Crouse, executive director of The Beverly LaHaye Institute. “His whole career has been devoted to mainstreaming homosexuality and to creating a culture that is not just accepting of, but approving of homosexual behavior—particularly among teenagers and pre-teens.”



The program notes that Jennings wrote the foreword for the book, Queering Elementary Education. He has also said he is inspired by Harry Hay, states Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries’ Washington, D.C., correspondent.



“Hay is one of the founders of the Mattachine Society, the first gay-rights group, and he was a strong supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which is a pedophile group that supports men having sex with boys,” said Knight, author of the new book, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who are Pushing America Toward Socialism.



Meanwhile, Jennings’ GLSEN group “has advocated safe-sex kits that include instructions for ‘fisting,’” Crouse said. “I don’t think it takes much to imagine what that’s about.”



Crouse sat with Jennings for two years on a U.S. Surgeon General’s task force on sex education. She recounts on the television feature the disturbing advice that Jennings gave as a teacher to a student.



A 15-year-old student “talked to Jennings about being approached by an adult man in a bus stop with whom he had sex,” Crouse recalls. “Jennings’ advice was, ‘I hope you used a condom and had safe sex.’



“This is against the law, number one; number two, it’s unconscionable that a teacher would give that kind of advice to a student,” Crouse stated. “And this is the man who is supposed to be providing safe schools for our kids?”



Despite calls from concerned citizens, pro-family groups, and members of Congress for Jennings to be replaced, “the Obama administration has sort of thumbed its nose at all of us,” Crouse said. “I think the American public is saying in this New Year, ‘we have to do something about that.’”



“Jennings has no business even being near a school, much less in charge of the government’s safe-school program,” Knight said. Knight’s newly released book, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who are Pushing America Toward Socialism, includes a detailed profile on Jennings and his advocacy for an extreme homosexual agenda.

http://www.coralridge.org/partnercentral/ministrynewsdetail.aspx?id=159




]]>
Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:33:03 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Science is real]]> [url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw&feature=related[/url]]]> Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:58:23 +0000 <![CDATA[Truth In Genesis - At TruthInGenesis.com you will find many resources on the Creation / Evolution debate]]> Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:30:17 +0000 <![CDATA[climate gate, the epilogue - because ronnie is still around...]]> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm
 
extract
 
"

However, it says "there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness", notable over complying with Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.

CRU scientists were too quick to dismiss critics from outside their own circles, it says.

Sir Muir said the methods the inquiry team used ought to allay fears that this was a whitewash.

"It's inevitable that people who've made up their minds (beforehand) have made up their minds," he said.

"But we haven't ducked the issues... we've gone to the heart of the issues to resolve them as best we can."

Edward Acton, UEA vice-chancellor, said the review should "finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated.

"We hope this exoneration of UEA climate scientists and their research collabroators around the world, some of whom have suffered considerably during this experience, will be widely reported.""

]]>
Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:23:26 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Responding to mwolf]]> Since our little pal Mikey seems to determined to just post the samefundie/creationist talking points over and over again (while ducking and dodging every time someone poses a direct question or challenge to him), I've decided to put together a list of the various claims he's made - along with a summary of how those claims are inaccurate or fallacious.
 
Rather than writing the same replies over and over again, from now on I'll just post a link/reference to the appropriate post in this thread. If there are any that I've missed, please post 'em. I'd been meaning to put together a list of creationist fallacies and lazy debate tactics, but this should serve the same purpose since Mikey uses pretty much all of them.
 
And here's an index with links to the individual posts, to make it even easier to refute Mikey's claims.
 
CLAIM 1
"Atheism is evil because it's responsible for the holocaust and various other attrocities." 
 
CLAIM 2
"All atheists are communists/socialists/Marxists." 
 
CLAIM 3
"Atheism is a religion because atheists BELIEVE there is no God."
 
CLAIM 4
"By not speaking out against the killing of Christians in China, or DrWorm's post that right-wing Christians should be put in camps, atheists condone both."
 
CLAIM 5
"our observation is needed  to make the wave functions collapse into matter," therefore "the'big bang' [couldn't] produce matter without our [God's] observation".
 
CLAIM 6
"everything may not be natural and God is plausable" [sic]
 
CLAIM 7
"The Bible is historically-accurate because of the dead sea scrolls/passages in the Bible that have been verified by historians or archaeologists"
 
CLAIM 8
"Creationism is valid because of discoveries made by scientists who also happened to be creationists."
 
CLAIM 9
"My philosophy is superior because I only believe, but you think you know everything."
]]>
Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:37:31 +0000
<![CDATA[Discussion: Why Macro Evolution is a Joke: explained - Monkey to man or animal to man can't happen. ]]>
The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - Watch more funny videos here]]>
Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:37:25 +0000
<![CDATA[ten commandments... - ...they aren't what you think they are...]]>  
]]>
Thu, 06 May 2010 22:14:26 +0000