325, I would like to reach you on a realistic basis. I notice that you Put in a regular amount of time in the forum. Being a creation science based website, petitioning Dr. Hovinds release, I consider your enthusiasm here. I really do respect your drive and ambition in the science fields.

 

From time to time I will make offensive posts, like "popcorn!" that drive at getting attention. I would like to make note that I do everything I do for a reason, there is a cause. This is not the only forum I frequent to "disturb the wasps nest", I go to a couple and have been banned from a couple.

One, http://www.evcforum.net/, I was banned from for "not following defined terminology".

 

You see, everything has a cause, a reason, a purpose, a drive. Every action, deed, word and thought have consequences, whether positive or negative. I always try to be cautious when living my life, for this very reason. And I wonder, what is it that drives you? I know that underneath the bitterness, anger and confusion there is suffering.

 

I have many friends that have different faiths then I do. Wiccan, pagan, druidism, deist, buddhist, islamic, judahism, etc. I have studied and talked with people about many beliefs.

 

One principle that unites everyone is suffering and death, that is our heritage. There are six paths of suffering that we struggle with. Brokenness, blindess, madness, bondage, sickness and hunger.

 

Even though I expect a different answer, remember this one thing. The spirit pursues you, in abundance, a large unique calling. One you cannot escape. It is that struggle that haunts you, it haunts your mind and body. It drives you to search, to hunger. Do not turn away from it, listen to it. It is what you know you must do.

spam?

"Most of the stuff he exposes is well know."

 

yes and most of it is well known to be falshoods and mischaraterizations.

 

" To us Creation is much more logical , and to evolutionists, evolution is."

 

THIS ALL COMES FROM THE simple fact that most creationists DO NOT understand what the theory applies too or what it even is.

 

really it's so frustrating to see people who question the theory without understanding it. it's aslo frustrating to see these people not understanding or wanting to understand the science behind it.

if you picked up a normal secular science textbook and you read the explination of natural selection working on mutations and how branching speciation and isolation leads to large varieties in genotype, IT BECOMES SO OBVIOUS WHAT THE THEORY STATES, and how it's so demonstrably true in it's explination.

 

now if you understood THAT, the next step for creationists is ID, which with some further understanding of the principal of natural selection can easily be explained by natural selction and god.

 

"For me I cannot understand that, as all I see is a trial of lies and stuuff that makes no sense at all."

 

on what camp? i can easily link to to a routine debunking of hovind's videos which will show you just how much YOUR camp is being fallacious. if you actually understood how the theory works. all this "stuff that makes no sense at all" will become obvious.

 

did you see some of the vids i linked? most of them explain evolution to you in bite sized chucks. i suggest you watch some by donexodus and cdk007.

"...respect Kent Hovind."
- Don't man, he does not earn any respect at all. This is the reason why:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
It's the only Peer-review of Hovinds thesis by a REAL scientist. Take 30 and read that and nothing that comes from Hovind is good. All his videos he quotemines, does not state the name of the article he's quoteing and he flashes everything so fast you don't have any possebility think after on exactly what he said. Also he's never accepted a longer and deeper argument of his "info". There is so much wrong with that man i can't even write it all here.

"He is very charismatic and charming."
- Might be true, but then again as i stated above. There are so many flawes if you even bothered to look.

"Most of the stuff he exposes is well know."
- Nope, give us anything you think he exposes and we'll tell you everythign that is wrong with it and show you reliable sources from accredited universities. Also watch this on why his "exposures" are wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

"To us Creation is much more logical ..."
- Nothing logical at all. The method of having the answer before searching for results and evidence for supporting it is so fallicious in every scientific way possible. = Creation is not a science, maybe pseudoscience.

"For me I cannot understand that, as all I see is a trial of lies and stuuff that makes no sense at all. "
- If you don't understand it you haven't tried to learn it. I bet you've got the "It's to complex for me to understand and so GOD DUNNIT!" , right? I'm sorry but i've read as much as possible from both sides and was really open to this, but creation has no answers to anything and it does not follow the scientific method. It's not like the scientists decided that the earth was 4.6 billion years old, it was what the evidence showed it to be.

"So you keep saying, fortunately I've studied evolution for so many years now and have yet to see any SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE for it."
- read the post about the missing link i posted in this forum.
You don't want to see any evidence and therefore it's impossible for us to show it even if we slammed it in your face. Did you study evolution and have a degree in this interseting subject?

"Common ancestry - In the thousands of years of human recorded history (imagine that), No documentation has ever been found of one animal, undergoing any kind of physical transformation up to the animal presently."
- Still shows you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution takes millions of years, not 6000. There are evidence for it. As i stated above, watch the post about the missing link. As it takes to so long time, we can't show you a exactly all variations of a species. The conditions of fossilisation is to bad for that. I find it ironically how much you desire a documentational evidence for common ancestry and yet you accept god as truth without requiring any evidence for his existance. We can never prove he exists as we cannot prove he had anything to do with how the world came to be.

"Abiogenesis - In the thousands of years of recorded history, spontaneous generation has not ever been observed or documented on earth or elsewhere in observable space."
- You do realise how much the earth has changed? and that the atmosphere has changed? The conditions that we got for so long time ago is only found in smoking cimneys in the deeps of the ocean.

You are so damn ignorant and refuse to see anything that does not comply with your world view and beliefs.

"So you keep saying, fortunately I've studied evolution for so many years now and have yet to see any SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE for it."

 

then WHY DO YOU STILL MISCHARATARIZE THE THEORY BY USING HOVINDS DEFINITIONS?! INSTEAD OF THE DEFINITION SCIENCE ACCEPTS.

 

"Common ancestry - In the thousands of years of human recorded history (imagine that), No documentation has ever been found of one animal, undergoing any kind of physical transformation up to the animal presently."

 

2 reasons why that is bull.

 

1) we've only really been keeping track of this with a high level of scrutiny for the last few decades so no suprise. but we have still observed direct and indirect speciation. and once you got speciation, it's only  a matter of time.

 

2) the kind of "change" you are expecting occurs over MANY THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS. so not suprising you don't witenss it in old texts from 6000 years ago.

 

3) interestinly enough there are many examples of HUMANS screwing around with selection criteria, how do you think we god household cats dogs, broccoli, banana's ect..

 

"Abiogenesis - In the thousands of years of recorded history, spontaneous generation has not ever been observed or documented on earth or elsewhere in observable space."

 

again this is so falacious it makes my head hurt.

 

1) again, this theory is only a few decades old, so no suprise. yet we still know a lot more now.

2) when did you think we were capable of witnissing polymers and DNA? hint* it wasn't 100 years ago.

3) abiogenesis IS NOT sponatnious generation. interestingly enough that theory was disproven and dropped more then a 100 years ago, by Pasteur.

4) all the organic chemicals have since been obsorbed by already living organisms, if we are gonna obesrve abiogenesis, it's gonna have to be in a lab. there's just to much alive competition out there now....with all the microbes and stuff.

 

"etc., so forth and so on."

 

huh? you didn't even know what you were talking about and yet you act like you do...funny.....

"So you keep saying, fortunately I've studied evolution for so many years now and have yet to see any SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE for it."
- Reading about it on creationwiki and ICR articles doesn't make you qualified for it. If you read a book about how to win in poker games and the book doesn't take up anything usefull or utter BS you wouldn't be better at poker would you?