I don't think he has to admit it. It was implied. As he was answering your question directly.

I have never said I can do any such thing, so unless you can contribute to the conversation please just shut up. All you have posted lately is random statements meant to stir the pot.


Implied doesnt mean crap to me. But I am glad he has you to defend him. Since he cant or wont man up.

Don't shut up test. I like your contributions.

I'm sure djm will comment on your slights Dawg. Can't see him missing out on that.

But no comment on this post Dawg? How does a YEC get past stories like this that hit the press so often?

Dawg, this is not you telling him what he believes?

What I find frightfully fascinating is that Dawg and others in his thread are quite willing to engage in significant amounts of passive-aggressive name-calling, etc., as he has done throughout this thread, but when someone else returns the "favor" (which I did) he gets upset. Reminds me of the schoolyard bully who gets confronted.

And I know you're not my buddy -- ever hear of sarcasm. You used it earlier when you called me "Skippy." Remember that???

Test, no matter what I believe until I accept his definitions and his logic I will by definition be wrong. But I think that you know that. Which is why he can never be a scientist -- he simply has little curiosity unless things fit into his restricted world view.

Thank you. Sent to printer.

Sorry that I wasn't around to reply on your schedule -- given that you are so f------ important. I had some client work to take care of for them.

Let me be direct: I don't think much of your thought processes or your emotional maturity. I won't say anything more than that to avoid being completely rude.

A clade of living organisms in the animal kingdom. Kind of shows where we all fit in.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/...410a0b96_o.gif

From the article:
And our backs have been hurting ever since! :cry:

No it was not. It was me confirming what he had already said.


I don't think I have called anyone a name in this thread. If I have it was probably deserved but I don't recall doing it and I am not going to go back through all the pages to find out. I am sure test will do that for me. He seems good at digging but not contributing.

You can say what you want about me I am a grown man and can handle it. What I can not and will not accept is you bringing my children into the mix.

I am not passive aggressive, I am aggressive in my stances I fight for what I believe is right. I have not ever wanted to be a scientist so no I wont ever become a scientist.

So if you want to want to call my anything fine go ahead. But do not ever bring my children up again. Because that is where I will draw the line.

and riff I never said there wasn't and ice age did I? It could have every well happened during the 6000 year time frame. Hell where I live in Atlanta was once shore line so anything is possible. I have never denied dinosaurs. I have never denied cave men. You and the others in this thread are the ones denying the existence of things.

The reason I didnt get back to you on your time frame is because I was busy with my children at the indocterine camp called school.

dawg, my contributions were in the beginning of the thread. I think everything should be open to being explained or taught in schools. That opinion was not popular with either side. That was my response to the OP, since then I have merely been entertained.
To post things that you feel are noteworthy would be the last thing on my to-do list around here.

More on the Kent Hovind front (I refuse to call him a doctor). Turns out that Mr. Hovind has been repudiated by a mainstream (and I use that term loosely) YEC group, Answers in Genesis. They wrote a document titled 'Arguments we think creationists should NOT use'. Oops, Mr. Hovind was using most of them in his arguments for creationism. In one debate with Mr. Hovind, creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, said to Mr. Hovind, 'Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat earth.' Wow, that had to hurt.

Anyway, Mr. Hovind is now housed at the Federal Correctional Institute, Edgefield SC. His wife's address? The Federal Correctional Institution, Marianna, FL.

So how old do you think the earth is? Based on your previous posts, I thought you to be a Young Earth Creationist.

I have to say that you have better skills at flat-out denial than anyone I have seen. That is one thing that you truly excel at.

ok this thread is bordering on bull shit now. please with the personal attacks. lets get back to debating evolution and the age of the earth. lets post links and tid-bits of info that support our prospective positions on the subject and stop the outright insults at each other.

k? thnx.

and yes i remember page two or three where i started to get out of line. but seriously lets get back to the debate.

To satisfy dawg craving for me to contribute.
I feel like intelligent Design has been neglected in the thread so:

"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Dr. John West's piece "Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same" in Research News & Opportunities." Link

To me the issue has been if you believe in an all-powerful God then he could do anything including change his creations over time. The Bible talks of creatures that we know nothing about and it also leaves a lot to the imagination surrounding Earth's early times. I don't subscribe to intelligent design but if you believe in that all-powerful God then how can you truly rule it out? Why are there animals and plants that went extinct a long time ago? Certainly God's creations without a soul still mean something to him. Why create them if He was going to let them go extinct?

The Age of the Earth is another thing where why does there have to be no God if the Earth is old? Certainly their are other options, perhaps it is only 6000 years old and God created it to look old. Perhaps it is truly old and God felt there was no need for believers to know the history of the early earth.

Aw, come on! You're taking all the fun out of it! (just kidding)