I noticed when I asked Sci Borg (now Ronnies evil twin/former Ben the rationalist) that since he says "science doesn't 'prove' anything" when I asked him does science prove that the world is billions of years old or does it prove that we come from animals he left and became ronnies evil twin. I would still like an answer from you Ben before you take your bi-polar medication.

Ronnie,

Why is it that EVERYONE on here is supposed to answer your questions yet you fail to answer anyones. I have repeatedly asked you several questions that you have failed to respond to or..when you respond...i show EVIDENCE or DATA that kicks shows you are demostrably wrong. Instead of staying on topic...you change subjects..make other unfounded acusations. This is a perfect example of what you do.

In your original "good reason's not to debate evolutionists" thread. I just went back and reviewed this entire thread. You were getting your ass handed to you so you changed topics to:
1) Global warming
2) Slockpuppets
3) Namecalling
4) Satin Worshipers
5) some movie called The Haunting
6) Calling someone a pedophile
7) micro vs. macro evolution
8) intellegent design
9) sockpuppets
10)) archeology only finding evidence of man 5500 years ago.
11) radiometric dating is a lie (just after he sited a date given that supported his claim)
12) NOW back to evolutionists wasting peoples time
13) BACK to global warming
14) more sockpuppets
15) BACK to micro vs. macro evolution
16) Civil Rights
17) Economic Policy of democrat v. republicans.
18) BAck to civil rights
19) BACK to Economic policy

Now, on each of these times Ronnie was having those unfortunate "facts" or "data" that got in his way. More specifically, someone would ask him a question he refused to answer. Instead of answering...ronnie merely changed the subject...hoping nobody would notice. Ronnie, EVERYBODY noticed.

I think this may be a new strategy...when ronnie is getting his ass handed to him in a thread....he just starts a new thread under the same name and all is whiped clean. Huh Ronnie??

No I started the new thread because the old one had so many replys that it started to take a long time to load.

Now back to the question you checked out on and then we'll go back to the others. If science doesn't prove anything like you said then why at the same time do you say science proves that the earth is millions of years old or that we come from animals or 'monkey like creatures' like your favorite creationist bigdog says?

"No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion" -John Stuart Mills

That really is brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.
And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating there is never again any real confidence in the world being millions of years old.

Thanks homie. I'm finally done. Have fun with yourself here. Just keep watching posts every five minutes like you do jus in case I come back. You really strengthened my faith today.

"brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.
And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating there is never again any real confidence in the world being millions of years old."

Hummmmm something is missing here.....what could it be...oh yeah....EVIDENCE supporting your post.
Quick Ronnie..run over to where all scientists go for quick, reliable scientifice info...The Family Alliance Foundation...or The 700 Club.com. Go fetch us sum real facts Ronnie. (DON'T FORGET TO MAKE A NEW SCREEN NAME)

Or would you rather talk about Civil Rights a THIRD time.

I am fairly new here but i find it amazing that Ronnie apparently has no shame whatsoever regarding his lack of knowledge on such a wide spectrum of topics.

Wrong. Try again.

"Wrong. Try again."

Good for you ronnie. You do NOT take pride in your ignorance. Well done young lad. Next step is getting yourself an education. Now, this may mean you cannot go to the same creationist websites for ALL your information. For example, i don't think the disovery institute is the leading expert on oh....let's say...labor statistics. Additionally, i don't think that The Family Alliance Coalition is the best place to find information on scientific research.
First Step- Define what your issue is and go to a leading authority on THAT issue. (Note: Pat Robertson is NOT a leading autority on anything..except ripping people off. Kent Hovind is NOT a leading authority on any subject...except meal time for D Block)

¨That really is brilliant sci. Too bad you can't take that logic to things like the geologic column. This means since we find layers of sediment created quickly in some places it refutes that they have to take millions of years.¨
and
¨And since we've had bad dates off by thousands even millions of years in radio metric dating and C-14 dating¨

Ronnie, do you find it odd that when presented with a chance to present actual EVIDENCE of these alleged gaps/problems with science, the young earth creationists failed to present any such evidence of gaps or problems. They did not present one witness to refute prior EXPERT testimony regarding geologic column formation and radiometric dating.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

These young earth creationists use terms and arguments created by The Discovery Institute. However, when the Discovery Institute was asked to back up these arguments they....they chose to not take the stand.
Ronnie, i ask you...can you tell me why these people would refuse to present their evidence of scientific gaps/problems UNDER OATH???? (Any chance the lil guy is gonna answer this?)

"Unfortunately, since the individual comets are so small and at such large distances, we have no direct evidence about the Oort Cloud." from - http://nineplanets.org/kboc.html

"The Oort Cloud in brief is an hypothesized area in space" "There has been no definate evidence that the cloud exists" So what you are saying is that this ...
http://www.universeguide.com/OortCloud.php

all i'm saying is that their is no hard evidence for the "Oort Cloud" as these scientists admit. there is only good speculation. so if there is no hard evidnence for the oort cloud there is less evidence thatt new comets are being formed by the oort cloud.

"namely the orbit of long period comets and planetiod beyond neptune."

thats still not hard evidence for the Oort cloud. they are not trying to contradict themselves. they already said there is no hard evidence.

thanks for clearing that up. atleast finally someone admits that there is no hard evidence for some Oort cloud.

they were created at the beginning of creation less than 10,000 years ago. comets maximum life span is 10,000 years. there is no hard evidence of anymore being created.

"because comets only start to decay when they get within a certain range of the sun, and of course you still have gravitational and electrostatical lumping"

and HARD evidence that they can last longer is...?

After 500 or so passes near the Sun (or any other gas giant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant) off most of a comet's ice and gas is lost leaving a rocky object very much like an asteroid in appearance. (Perhaps half of the near-Earth asteroids may be "dead" comets.) A comet whose orbit takes it near the Sun is also likely to either impact one of the planets or the Sun or to be ejected out of the solar system by a close encounter (esp. with Jupiter).

http://www.nineplanets.org/comets.html

sorry homie its speculation. its guessing like guessing that we come from animals. how do you date a comet? carbon dating? they don't know how old they are.

i would be happy to see evidence of a comet forming today. real evidence. not some speculative guess.

"nowadays don't really grow because most of the material has been usurped over the billions of years our solarsystem has existed." again...nice assumptions but no real evidence. but when i logically assume God made all creatures similar not born from one animal u say thats wrong. double standard because you don't like it. the fate of a comet:

Jupiter family comets (JFC) and long period comets (LPC) (see "Orbital characteristics", above) appear to follow very different fading laws. The JFCs are active over a lifetime of about 10,000 years or ~1,000 revolutions while the LPCs disappear much faster. Only 10% of the LPCs survive more than 50 passages to small perihelion, while only 1% of them survive more than 2,000 passages.[35] Eventually most of the volatile material contained in a comet nucleus evaporates away, and the comet becomes a small, dark, inert lump of rock or rubble that can resemble an asteroid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Fate_of_comets

thats what it comes down to. We don't have any real evidence of new comets being formed and we know the average life spans. about10 to 12 thousand years.

"1000 passages of 1000 years makes a 1 000 000 year life times.."

lets say thats true. that still means that the oldest comet should have burned out...lets see...about over 4 billion years ago since there is no REAL evidence of replenishment.

and yet new ones keep appearing from beyond neptune....

What kind of evidence is that? you see them for the first time so that means they were just created? gimee a break.

something like haleys comet being formed and shooting off. that's the kind of evidence that i would like to see.

"and again. almost aal the matter withing that range has already been usurped by other bodies (asteriods, comets, planets) so there is nothing left to form."

so no real evidence of new comets? thank you

can't u just put the main points up instead of making me go through all that? i'd appreciate it.

ok. i read them. now what part of any of what you posted convinces u of HARD evidence for the "Oort cloud" or new comets being created? all i got out of it is that they have great models of the oort cloud. a good model of wha they believe is not real evidence. please tell me what you found in here that convinced you that there is HARD EVIDENCE>

you call a model of belief evidence? now your just being totally ignorant. please...bring some real PROOF.

i suppose if someone shows u a model of a ufo you'll take that as proof?

they have a model of how it woks, but no evidence of the real thing.

so now u believe in ufo?

all i asked for was hard evidence. not what looks like hard evidence.

u need facts to back up your hypothesis. read any scientific paper that claims to have evidence for new comets being fomed and tell me what part of it is hard proof.

"the oort cloud is a WORKING hypothesis."

PROOF? Still waiting.

"most oortcloud related papers don't say new ones are being formed, as in formed from material."

So they magically appear?

"they discuss the observation of new bodies FROM the cloud it self."

which we're still waiting for proof of.

"these comets already exist."

wait...they're being formed (magically from a cloud) but they already exist? i don't know what type of cloud you're in man but i'd still like to see some proof.

all these claims sound really impressive. but now if you will just give me some hard evidence i might believe u.

and repeating a bunch of scientific words does not impress me. what out of everything that you have wrote is real proof? go back and read everything. all the research shows is how they believe it works. nothing factual.

well i think this forum really has become a waste of time now. its not posted in free hovind any more so most people won't find it. so i'm only left with arguing with 365.

i pray for u 365. i hope u open your heart to Christ one day.

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"

"It takes Common Sense to notice the flaws in ToE, often the evidence is as plain as day and textbooks are still filled with lies"

1 commen sense is quite misleading when it comes to many scientific or mathemetical subjects..
like statistics. or quantitive genome analysis.
and lets not even talk about the biases and perception flaws of the human brain..but nvm all of that.

show me some lies APART from heckle (btw those developmental similarities are STILL THERE).


"I´m curious, did you say I´m too poorly educated to understand evolution compared to other scientists, because I´m a creationist or a woman?"

no, because your initial comments showed all the lack of understanding as your standard creationists...and from the perspective of a student in life sciences, it's a massive lack.


"And if only the paleantologist- and molecular biologist experts can fully understand the intricacies of ToE'

ooho, jolly. almost a quotemine.."lets say" is a expression remember. the point was that people in the relevent fields understand evolution the best , and since they are the ones who utilize and SHAPE IT, they are the sole people who should decide the merit of the theory. not some semieducated layman.

"then the majority of ppl are lost."

which they are. even in a county like NL, most people graps the basics. on a genetic and cellular level. it starts to ebcome a lot harder to grasp.
EG: where are we going to put up a macrocellular concept like "species" when it comes to bacteria and algea?

(btw i didn't even know you where a woman, and not like i would care)

"I´m guessing you haven´t watched Hovind´s Berkley debate?"

no i haven't. but after wathcing his seminars, and soem other debates (including rainbow) or OTHER creationists debates, i don't think it's mcuh different form standard creationist tactics...like the abuse of half asses evidence and ignorance exploitation. hell..most of "evolutionists" end up giving half lectures , instead of debates.


"you´re much more qualified than I am to talk about the ´facts´."

how about you start reading "microbiology of the cell, Alberts 5edition". srly,don't even try the layman trick on me . I actually study in a relevant field. and you?

"O yes, macro evolution occurs on a laaaaaaaaaarge scale,"

look at the mutation rates, then count generations. you'll see what i mean...
pretty sure all those people who shout "adaptation after the flood" didn't do that.
for the intermediate forms, we have the fossil records. and genome analysis between related species.


"Check the debate for fruit fly research - that´s just sad."

link? i'd love to see it.
just as long as someone doesn't say "IT's STILL A FLY". because after they say sucha thing, they already lost their credibility in my eyes.

"it´s not scientifically proven and shouldn´t be portrayed that way"

yet the entire scientific establishment disagrees with you...mmmm.do i smell an atheist conspiracy?

"or what´s more, forced upon young minds as so-called science."

and obvious religious indoctrination should ? (creatinism, or ID)

"Allelic or Allele....hmm?"
i'm ducth, or does sloppy spelling and grammer greatly piss you off?

"Allele frequencies do change, but that, in no way, makes the ToE a ´FACT´... "
no, it makes evolution a fact. since that is the very mechanism by which we observe lots of morphological changes. (from which speciation becomes much more apparent(as in more easily observable))

the THEORY, explains and describes HOW this happens.
you have the FACT that things evolve, and the THEORY that explains how it happens.

"They change for example due to factors like random genetic drift that can cause marked changes in genetic frequency in a small population."

and the expression of these alleles is selceted by the enviromentn on how beenficial they are...which in turns leads a small group to differ greatly and eventually split of the genepool of the parent clade if left isolated long enough for sufficient genetic divergence to accumulate (speciation).
GJ!

"to improve breeds"

and plants. and observable in wide spread populations in which small groups are diverging form the parent clade.
or used as a descriptive factor in fruit fly research, or medical research to genetic diseases.

"this scientific information to breed a cow into a whale."

and that would be evolution HOW?
(see statements like THESE are how i know you poorly understand the subject)

"Watch more on petrified trees."

i'd perfer to read more in geology journals.

"Geology has a looooot to do with the theory of evolution. "

id shows we had the time, and it shows the enviroments in which the fossilizes species evolved, of what environments triggered certain morphological changes.

"Date fossils according to rock layers and layers according to fossils."
oh it's much more complicated then that, ask you local paleontologist.

'Also the many flaws of carbon dating pointed out by Hovind"
"flaws" which the scientist who use the methods ARE ALL AWARE OF. but hovind doesn't tell you that does he?
nor does he even adress all the other isotopes people use in radiometric dating, the ones that actually go beyond 50 000 years...

"Species of trees and polllen in layers?"
yes. that is the kind of information you would be interested in if you where looking for evolution. because you can compare that with other fossils on subsequent strata.

"faith believes in what it cannot see."

i cna see the fossils, the gentic change, the diveregence pattern, the developmental similarities and their divergence...ect,
so what is the problem?

"theories often presented as proven ´science´. "

just like quantum theory ? or big bang? or continental drift?

"The earh shows many signs that it is in fact young and not as oooooooooold "

like what? link so we can debunk.
or we can link you to debunking. (please don't show up with asinine things liek tree rings, or salt concentrations..)

"That ´warm fuzzy feeling´ I speak of means that I feel thrilled at the revelation of what I believe to be the truth,"

yes. now demonstratie it as truth to me.
all you described is the nice physical reaction your faith gives you. nothing more.

"the one you feel in your nether regions when you´re debating a creationist."

no, that would be a mix of amusement, pity and sheer frustration at you lack of intelletual integrity.

that warm feeling you feel i feel when i take a deep breath and look at the people i love and the world around me in all it's beauty. i don't need a magical sky daddy to make em feel good.

"Science is not the enemy"
yet you spit on it when it doesn't jive with you religion. funny..

"in schools as long as all the lies are taken out of the textbooks"

something i FULLY agree with. keep the books up to date and understandable.

'that leaves nothing with which to back up your theory,"

evidence for ToE doesn't come form school text books. it comes form somehting called "the scientific method".

'You might want to lift my ignorance, but at least I can spell, and it´s not even my first language."

OOOH, you got the meaning, yet you moaned about spelling...so WHY THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING IF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT I WRITE?

this isn't my first language either, and i'm a tad lazy when it comes to correcting. but i've already explained that plenty of times. (so now i know you aren't a lurker)

"And you believe in miracles? How ironic."
Jezus christ!...figure of speech.

"So evolution is a religion after all..."
sorry, grasping straws like that doesn't earn you points.

'II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation"

and heres what i see when i read that.
"WE are right, but everyone will scoff us, but they are fools and we are still right and they know it!"
such easily recognised propoganda.

well u C...it's like this. 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"

"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"

The quotes above are from the following sites: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/christian_warning.htm

you know what i thing about that? i think that 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"

u mean like repeating the lie of evolution to kids taht dinosaurs died millions of years ago so that they'll believe in evolution.

what nobody's gonna challenge me on this?

Whattttt!!!!! that's bologna. U know why? cuz 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"

well scientific credentials is a good way to identify an ends justifies the means liar. It's not what you know but who you believe. having papers doesn't make you smart or honest.

Ronnie is doing well being gang banged by a bunch of immature, know it all, mean spirited, spoiled children. You folks being paid to post? I seem not to get an answer when I ask this.

ya i think they are being paid to post. i found out they're really old men trying to act like children. thats why they use baby language and cant spell half the time. they work for the obama administration. cuz 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"

mike dont stupe to his level of anger. they just get angry cuz they know evolution is being chellenged and they dont like it. u think anybody except for athiests and evolutionists take him serous any way especially after his perverted comments about Christ?

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6823

Mike. see this shows u how 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"

arent u the 1 that believes that we probably came from some type of a slimey magnet-like-creature (BOT) out of a premordal soup before we became monkey-type-creatures?

I meant: "maget-like-creature."

arent u the 1 that believes that we probably came from some type of a slimey maget-like-creature (BOT) out of a premordal soup before we became monkey-type-creatures?

just tell me this. do you believe that mankind comes from some type of maget like creature that crawled out of an organic soup?

well what did we look like when we crawled out of whatever since u know so much.

a botfly larva. one of http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bot

just answer the question please.

That's funny Ronnie! Obviously we had to crawl before we walked. Evolutionists have to believe that we slithered before walked if they believe in the big bang. It must have looked like a worm or something, whatever came alive and moving. Maget like creatures. I'm definately going to remember that one! LOL!

Hey Ronnie. Just wanted to let you know I was debating this anti-Christ guy at work (yes I decided to get a job again, for a while) about evolution, monkey like creatures and maggots (yes paranoid 365 is right about the spelling. You're rubbing off bad spelling on me), and he got so mad that he didn't even come back after lunch. He called the office back and said he got sick. He was trying to offend me, but got offended. Crazy people. Oh well. GOD bless guys.

U rock BIGDOG! where u been dude? i'm going to make a thread dedicated to you titled Do we come from magot like creatures?!!. take it easy bro! u where the one who fired me up after Hovind.

no i accused u of coming from magget like creatures.

well excuse me maggot. atleast i don't believe that i come from one like u evolutionists

not magical. spiritual. something that science hasn't caught up with yet for some. but no it still sounds to rediculous to have a accidentally come from crawling and monkey like creatures.

your just mad cuz people are finding out the truth

no im just astonished at your level of stupidity and peoples inability to think for themselves. You can't even make arguments for what you links you posted cuz u don't even understand them.

no sorry. i do think for myself. i says to myself "self. do we come from worm like creature? NO." your the 1 whos been brainwashed with that gargage.

u haven't brought any evidence that we come from worm like creatures.

U probably would worm. is that why they call u worm? cuz u come from worm like creatures?

so what were the first living creatures faker?

thats the worst coppout i ever heard from u. it doesnt matter? then what the hell are you doing here talking about evolution and the origins of life?

it's a simple question. what did the first living creatures look like?

just give your most scientific answer.

U believe that we came from nothing or energy, a non-intelligent source, that was already there, to this complex stage, and u say thats not a miracle? all you can do is mock. just give me a scientific explanation of the first creatures that came alive. is that so hard? teach me.

anybody still there? i'm waiting to learn about evolution

that's an interesting belief, but when u say, we as common people without the lacking knowledge shouldn't discuss it." thats not true. everyone should discuss it. that makes u subjective as opposed to objective in science and belief. its like the priests that say, just dont question the pope, cuz he has studied this. we have to question all things and constantly reform to what is true. ya i'm catholic, but do i believe everything in the catholic church no.

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"

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"

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"

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"

Who Will Ben "the rationalist" (accountant), also known as, Sci-borg "The (fake) doctor of Science"/Ron'sevilbro "the Attorney", return as Next? I think it's funny how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ.
(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 that shows 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

are u serious? because 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"

kevin. is your real name ben? just wondering?

notice how kevin didn't answer this question when asked if he's really ben the sock puppet? it's because he is. good ol Ben the rationalist also known as sci borg the "FAKE" doctor of science.

are you sure? cuz evolutionists want 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"