Kent Hovind Gets Taken Again
Oh, this is just too precious.
The April 2005 issue of Scientific American included an editorial entitled “Okay, We Give Up” and subtitled, “We feel so ashamed”. The editors said they were contrite for ignoring creationism and ID, simply because there’s no evidence for either one.
That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts.
This was clearly an April Fools joke. Perhaps not the funniest ever, but still pretty blatant. But Kent Hovind fell for it anyway.
Go read his response. I’m not reading so much as a twitch on the Clue-O-Meter. No wonder he’s a laughingstock, even by creationist standards.
This isn’t the first time this has happened, either: in 1999, New Mexicans for Science and Reason awarded Hovind the P.T. Barnum Award for showing a Philadelphia audience evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. He didn’t realize it was NMSR’s April Fools prank.
Anyway, here are some selections from Hovind’s reply to Scientific American. Those of you who are familiar with him may recognize a lot of it. Those who don’t will discover new depths of kookiness.
The magazine treats evolution as if it is a part of science, when there’s nothing further from the truth. It is a religion, masquerading as science. But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a dog came from a work 4.6 billion years ago.
There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today.
As for the flood carving Grand Canyon, why don’t they explain to us why the top of the Canyon is 4,000ft higher than where the river (Colorado River) enters the canyon? Why don’t they explain to us how rivers miraculously flowed up-hill for millions of years to finally cut the groove deep enough so they could flow downhill?
The simple answer is uplift, of course. But Kent doesn’t accept continental drift, so presumably the idea of mountains growing is anathema to him as well.
There’s no such thing as a “fossil record”; there are simply fossils in the dirt.
Thanks for clearing that up. In other news, there’s no such thing as the free market; there’s just people buying and selling stuff. There’s no such thing as the National Archives; just a government building with a lot of old papers.
And if you can’t get your point across any other way, compare your opponents to Nazis or Communists:
Try to get a creationist article into a magazine like Scientific American, and see what happens. Ten years ago if a professor in the Soviet Union tried to submit an article to any Soviet magazine claiming that communism didn’t work, and capitalism is a better system, he would be shipped off to Siberia if he survived. Today, if a teacher in a public university, or a writer at any major science magazine (such as Scientific American) dares to suggest that evolution is not true, and maybe Creation is true, he will be sent to academic Siberia in a heart-beat.
One thing, though: ten years ago was 1995. The Soviet Union had formally become Russia four years earlier. I doubt anyone would have been sent to Siberia for saying that the old regime didn’t work.
I can’t believe these guys think there are scientifically credible arguments for the idea that all life came from nothing, 18 billion years ago. What are they thinking?
I agree with Hovind on this point: you’d have to be crazy to think that life on Earth started 4 billion years before the Big Bang. (For those unsure of the timeline: the universe is roughly 14 billion years old. The Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Life appeared somewhere on the order of 1 billion years after the Earth formed, or about 3.5 billion years ago.)
The truth is that many scientists have come to understand who butters their bread. They have to support the evolution theory or lose their grant money. Ask any number of scientists who have not kissed the sacred cow of evolution and have lost their job, grant money, or position at a university. The list grows every day. See video number 7 for much more on this.
Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory!
The Bible says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Anyone who believes they came from a rock is a fool.
Hovind doesn’t think he came from a rock. He thinks he came from dirt.
You can download MP3s and videos of Hovind’s unique brand of stand-up comedy here.
Update, Sep. 16, 2005: Fixed URL to Hovind’s response. Thanks to alert reader Jamie for the correction.
Some numbers: 1, 2, 4, 8 ,16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024.
What’s the connection?
A creationist argument:
Well, i believe ALL numbers are multipled by FOUR each time.
How comes?
Well, if i PICK these numbers…1, 4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, look what i get!!! Multipled by 4 each time! Seee, see, it must be true!
A scientific argument:
Here our or numbers: 1, 2, 4, 8 ,16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024.
The only logical argument is that they are powers of two.
Question. Which one is the correct answer?
I am sorry, I am too stupid to understand what this is all about, who shall I blame, God or Evolution?
Thank you in forward for a devoted and passionate answer.
I can’t stop laughing at all the narrowminded, brainwashed, faithless, shallow people trying to attack Kent Hovind with mindless dribble and inacuracies. I’m only talking about the professors, and teachers, and doctors and all the other “educated” people out there that have given their two cents worth on Mr. Hovind. I’m not even talking about the common lay person, like myself, writing responses to all the comments before mine. People. There is a reason why Mr. Hovind offers $250,000 to anyone that can prove evolution. It can’t be done! There is not one shred of factual evidence that proves evolution or any part of it. Wake up! Mr. Hovind can’t get anyone to debate him, because it would ruin careers, putting them in awkward positions, not being able to factually explain something they have been teaching or “preaching” all their “educated” lives. Whether you believe in creation or not. Doesn’t matter. Bottom line is, evolution is a “theory”, not a fact, just like religion is a “theory” to the evolutionists. Gee. That makes sense. End of discussion.
wegs:
I’m curious: what’s your explanation for the multiple nested hierarchies seen in living beings?
Also, what mechanism prevents small changes (what you’d probably call microevolution) from adding up to become large changes?
In the exact same way that gravity is a theory, or the germ theory of disease, or atomic theory.
wegs, seriously, stop it.
Go to http://www.kent-hovind.com
Look at (especially the ‘Quacky Quotes – Science’ pages) and look at some of the things Hovind has said. He know less about science (and especially physics) than a high school graduate, yet he manages to talk about science as though he were an expert.
Here are some examples:
The electromagnetic spectrum contains all the different wavelengths. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar, sonar, including a small piece in the middle called light.
oops, anyway, as I was saying….
sonar is sound, not light. I learned this in meddle school….
Another one:
If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.
I’m sorry, but this is false. No scientist has ever been able to calculate the speed of light to be anthing but exactly c (~ 3 x 10^8 m/s)
The car’s motion WILL affect the light, though. The light (from the perspective of the person on the sidewalk) will have a blue shift…
Since Hovind uses ‘facts’ that are so easy to demonstrate to be incorrect, he’s making it more difficult for real scientists (who are Christian) to have any meaningful conversation about our faith with non-Christian scientists.
Hovind does not know science, but worse than that, he slanders scientists. This is his biggest mistake. If you really want to bring people to Christ, calling them names, telling them they’re going to hell, and the other tactics Hovind uses to ‘entertain’ his crowd, are not the way to do it.
As a Christian, I am appalled that someone like Hovind has gained so much popularity.
I’m pasting this in from the above website:
Evangelical churches have made great progress in this country by demonstrating God’s power over evil and by living out a message of self-sacrificial concern for those in need. Hovind’s videos would undoubtedly energize some Believers in this country, but would also fill them with easily refutable misinformation, and would further an injustice against many nonBelievers. I predict that the net result would be to hinder further progress of the work that has been done here, and to re-create the situation that we face in the United States: determined, well-organized, well-financed opposition from educated, articulate people who view us as hypocrites for calling them tools of Satan while we sinfully misrepresent them and their beliefs.
Oh, yeah, and wegs, you should be aware that NO scientist will ever try to PROVE any theory; it can’t be done with any of them.
Theories can only be falsified, or be given more corroborating evidence – that’s all.
If a theory is falsified, it is thrown out. If it’s been given more evidence, more scientists will accept the theory.
One very good example is Einstein’s theory that light is bent by gravity. In the late 1920’s (I think) there was a great opportunity to falsify this theory. Scientists looked at the (apparent) position of a star during a solar eclipse (the light would be bent – or not bent – by our sun’s gravity. They found that the light was, indeed, bent. Result? Einstein’s theory gained some evidence.
IT WAS NOT PROVED!
Not falsified either, though, and many more scientists came to accept the theory.
I was reviewing a debate Hovind did several years ago and this idiot actually suggested that Tyrannosaurus rex was a herbivore! How else could they be on the Ark without making Noah into a dinner? I gave his whole view a good thrashing in my blog.
Did anyone here about “Dr.” Hovind’s arrest for tax fraud? I cannot believe so many people buy into his bullcrap about morals and ethics.
Excuse me. I accidentally used the word “here” instead of “hear.” Like when Kent Hovind accidentally didn’t pay taxes on the millions of dollars he has made, off of soft minded creationists, in the past few years.
zack frisbee:
I noticed. See here.
I suppose that I, too, could lower myself to the level of an anti-intellectual thug by misspelling someone’s moniker as ‘ErrandsBoy’, or by proving that my comp has spell check programming, but I shall not bother. Instead, while conceding that I am a Pro-Trinitarian Pentacostalist (whew!), I shall challenge arensb to provide some evidence of his own, to support his rather obvious belief in the hypothesis of Evolution. Please do not waste my time with some secondary educational level intro about multiple nested hierarchies-I am not in any particular need of such- but rather, demonstrate for us , as to how they provide some scientific proof/evidence of Evolution. Indeed, my studies seem to convince me that multiple nested hierarchies provide evidence of and for Intelligent Design, not to disprove it in any manner. At any rate, I shall look forward to discovering whether or not you are equal to the challenge, with which I have presented you. Good day, sirs.
john farley:
I haven’t seen this argument before. How exactly are nested hierarchies evidence for ID? Is the designer limited to tinkering with what she’s already done, and unable to take a winning design from one lineage and reuse it in another?
Wow – the backflap marketing of breakfast cereal packing is getting quite complex! What kind of suprise toy did you get with that?
My question to the evolutionists, umm where is your proof, not your therory but honest proof, like Brother Hovind says “evolution is a religion not a science”
Fox57:
Proof is for mathematicians and bartenders, but here’s some evidence.
Fox57 (and others from the peanut gallery):
Why this push to denigrate evolution by calling it a religion? If religion is such anathema to you, why are you a Believer?
It’s a pity I wasn’t able to join this discussion earlier (I admit it may even had ended by now, at least here) but I have something to say on topic:
I think both fractions (“the creationists” and “the scientists”) misunderstand the consept of the question “how it happened that the world is as we know it?”.
All I’ve read here was about what was at “the beggining”. First thing is this was not “the beggining”. For each event in the timeline there is an earlier period. I think, nobody is able to imagine that. “The beggining” is a limit of the human mind. The same resembles to the borders of space (or universe or whatever you call it). Concluding from the above I think it is beyond human mind capabilities to answer those questions.
The “Supreme being” theory is called forth to explain everything what current level of science cannot explain (in earlier periods of human history the “God’s will” was an explanation for almost everything).
The creationists’ point that the world is too complex to be created “by chance, evolution or whatever” is worth taking into consideration. I partly agree with that. But that is not the evidence for a creator, for the next question (which I’ve never seen to be asked, so, I’m going to be the first) occurs: “How did “The creator” appeared?”. In that case, “The creator” is much more complex than his creation (any doubts on that?).
And that puts an end to the theory, as this logic can be translated further and further on without any limit. Actualy the God’s existance is denied by this very argument. The circle has closed.
I know I’m going to be blamed for what I’m going to say, but all that “Creation” and “Supernatural” stuff is summoned to cover the blanks of human ignorance and limitness (if such word exists). The proof of that is A LOT of logical mistakes in every religion which can be explained only by human’s hand not God’s. So none of those holy books (The Bible, Koran, Thora and other) is a God’s creation. They all written by humans. And assumption that human is created by God’s likeness (sorry, if I use the wrong word, English is not my first language) is a proof for that.
First: even if there is a God and he created the universe, for what reason shoud he favor the humans most of all? For what reason should he care for them? Because he created them at his own likeness? And who is the author of that idea? Humans (what a miracle coincedence)!
The humans cannot be God’s likeness because they are of different gender. God cannot be of different gender at one time. Or, maybe someone whant to say that female is not a human? Also humans have legs, hands, hair, nails an so on. Do God need all those devices (he is a supreme being, remember?)? I doubt that. What else makes humans close to God? Intelligence? Ha-ha! I think no comments needed here? So, it seems to me, humans have nothing in common with God. The creationists blame “the science” or “Satan” that they are making gods of humans. I think everything is exactly the opposite: it is the creationists who thries to give humans a divine status.
Second: life after death, souls, heaven and hell and other crap… All souls go to either haven or hell? Then from where all new ones are generated? And if God created all the universe and its inhabbitants doesn’t in any way sign at any “afterlife” existance. All “afterlife” nonsense is invented by humans under stong “fear of death” and “fear of unexistance” feelings. These parts of human nature explane a lot.
So, I think, we can leave those “evolution”, “big bang”, “creation”, “the Flood” and other small questions aside. They don’t give answers to the topic discussed here.
I’m ready to hear your replies and answer them. Just try to be less emotional and stay to the topic.
I wish I had stumbled upon this debate earlier, just found it the other day. I myself have been in this very discussion numerous times and I wondered if anyone wants to keep this discussion going.
I myself am a Christian, however I’m not a literalist in terms of the Genesis theory. Now, understand me. I’m NOT saying the Bible is false, or lying. Remember that the first 5 books os the Old Testament was written by Moses, many years ago. Okay, he may have received (and probably did) receive special insight (he did meet God) but why would God have to disclose how He made the universe and all its inhabitants? Imagine this. 1 Gen. 1: In the beginning there was a huge expansion of time and space conforming to the laws of e=mc^2, ensuring that pure energy transformed into matter over time.. Now imagine the entire evolution theory fitting into the Bible.
My view is this: God certainly did create the cosmos and everything else BUT the book of Genesis carry a much simpler version to fit in with the people of the time. Remember that 3000 years ago even the most basic physics and maths theorems was not yet devised and in the peoples’ minds at least, did not exist.
Phew. What a mouthful. I hope I get a reply guys.
Cheers
Ou rooie:
Given a sufficiently-contrived exegesis, you can make the Bible say anything you like. For instance, I’ve heard people interpret “and God said, let the earth bring forth animals” (emphasis added) as implying abiogenesis through natural processes.
But then you have to wonder what kind of person would write it that way, if that was what he meant. Was God (or Moses, or whoever wrote the passage in question) such a bad writer that nobody understood what he meant until after the scientific discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries? If so, then presumably there are other bits of the Bible that appear to say one thing, but really mean something else, something that won’t become apparent until after we learn something else about the world by other means. In other words, if the Bible can’t be relied to mean what it seems to say, then it’s unreliable, and we should just chuck it.
Hey arensb sup
You certainly touch on some very delicate points there, but I would concede that you are right about the bible not being 100% historically correct. Remember that the Bible was written by people.
However, calling the entire Bible unreliable is very harsh. I do not know what your knowledge is about the Bible, but the Bible is a compilation of 66 books (testimonials, songs, stories, letters and chronicals) written over thousands of years by many different people. Also, the most important point conveyed by the Bible is not the creation, it is the gospel.
I would like to know whether you argue against Christianity or against religion in general and what your views on those topics are. As for me, I got work to do.
Cheers
ou rooie:
Harsh perhaps, but am I wrong?
For one thing, there’s a difference between “incorrect” and “unreliable”. To take a different example, there’s a book out there called Sixteen Crucified Saviors that argues that the story of Jesus is in no way original, that there were several other myths of gods born of virgins, who performed miracles, were crucified for humanity’s sins, etc. Gods like Mithra, Dionysus, and others. This book has been criticized — by Bible skeptics and atheists, mind you — as having very poor scholarship. That is, while much of what the author says is true, some of it isn’t, and he often misquotes his sources or draws the wrong conclusion from them. In other words, you can’t just read a passage from the book and trust that it’s true, because it might be contaminated with bad information, or incorrect conclusions, or conclusions drawn from bad premises.
As to how this pertains to my point above: go visit some atheist or skeptic sites, like Internet Infidels, and read some of the critiques of the Bible. Like, say, a list of Biblical contradictions. Then visit some apologetics sites and see how they respond to these criticisms. Invariably, you’ll find explanations like “this word means X in common parlance, but in this passage it means Y”, or “this passage is metaphorical, and doesn’t mean what it appears to mean”, and various other explanations (some might say excuses) for why a passage’s “real” meaning is completely different from its surface meaning.
Assuming these explanations are correct, it means that you can’t read a verse or a chapter and trust that you’ve understood what it means. For instance, one common way of reconciling the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 is to say that Gen. 1 is the overall story, and Gen. 2 is a sort of close-up view of the sixth day, concentrating on Adam and Eve. But if that’s true, then Gen. 2:4 (“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”) doesn’t mean what it seems to mean. The more apologetics you read, the more such passages turn out to have “non-literal” meanings. You can’t remember every bit of apologetics at once, so when you’re reading passage A, you can’t be sure that its meaning isn’t affected by passage B, which makes the Bible unreliable.
Now, I won’t deny that many things in the Bible are true. A lot of the peoples and cities mentioned in the historical books probably existed. Herod and Pontius Pilate really existed and ruled over Judea. But Hebrews were never enslaved (at least not in large numbers) in Egypt, the flood never happened, the dead didn’t walk around Jerusalem after Jesus’ crucifixion, etc. So some things in true, some things are false, some are patently ridiculous (e.g., talking snakes), and you shouldn’t trust what you read in the Bible without external confirmation.
arensb:
Seems like you do know your history. And yes, it is my opinion that the Bible is not entirely accurate historically. But to completely discredit it as spiritual guide is another matter. I would like to know whether you argue solely against the Bible, Christianity or spiritual or supernatural beings (eg. do you believe in a god)
G2g for now. Cheers
Hey guys,
I just found this site and in all honesty I haven’t read all of the comments posted yet but I just wanted to make my mark on the page. I believe in God and I also believe that he created the world in 6 literal days. I believe that anyone who believes other than that is mistaken and that in the end when they come to meet God face to face that they will be sorry they ever believed such a obsurd idea as evolution. In the words of Martin Luther: “Here I stand I can do no other.”
James,
You are more than entitled to your beliefs. Others are just as entitled to evaluate available evidence and draw differing conclusions.
…..I just wanted to make my mark on the page.
Well, I’ll give you credit for being a well-behaved puppy.
One of the big problems id that creationists do not understand the meaning of the word “theory”.
In laymans terms, a theory explains facts eg Einsteins general theory of relativity explains gravity.
The Theory of evolution explains evolution.
What matters is the message of Christ. Love your niegbour and your enemy. Repent your sins ect ect.. All this about how, who and when is not important or at least should not be important to ones faith in God. I think mixing science and religion is as bad as mixing polotics and religion is. Faith that the God of Abraham created everything is whats important. Jesus did not speak in parables for nothing. God bless.
Sometimes we tend to make things more complicatd than what they really are. “Hmm, maybe if I put in a word whcich noone has ever heard of…hmm, perhaps that will make my theory look more right”. I may not be the smartest man walking around (IQ of only 132), and I admit, there are a lot of these words in this page I do not understand (you see my native language is not English). But imagine playing Yatzee (or Yahtzee or whatever you English call it). Wouldn´t you rather be the winner than the one leading during the game? There is no way I can prove to you that God created the earth (it is all down to faith), but I do not care, cause soon God will come to this earth and he will prove me (and all other Christian) right. So, I don´t mind being behind you guys at this point of the game. I only care about winning it, and I know that in the end I will.
Shorter Ravenghost:
“I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but Magic Man will save me!”
Hmm, arensb, perhaps it is like this: Simple (me) may not undertand complicated (you), but complicated for sure do not understand simple… I believe in something simple, you believe in something complicated. Cause that is what it is; something you believe in.It is all down to faith, not evidence or science. And yes; Magic Man will save me. As the matter of fact, he already has (2000 years ago).
I understand that you not believers (in God), are provoked by the simplicity of Christianity, but the simplicity is the beauty of it.
Ravenghost:
What exactly are you talking about? The original post, about how Hovind mistook an April Fools prank for a serious article? One of the topics mentioned in the >70 comments before yours? What?
Having said that, I agree that “goddiddit” is a simple explanation for anything. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.
And if you think that evolution is a matter of faith, then you are sadly mistaken. Go educate yourself.
I am trying to behave correctly in this discussion, but now you are making things personal. You are entitled to have your opinion, so please let me have mine. I do not like people, (whether they are believers in God or evolution), who say: I am right, you are wrong. I think what s political correct is to say: I believe I am right and I believe you are wrong. I think that a discussion between an “evolutionbeliever” and a believer in Christianity can not come down to evidence, simply because the whole thing about Christianity has nothing to do with evidence. We do not need evidence, we need faith. Faith is our language, and assumptions, not evidence, is your language, and we all know that a discussion is heading nowhere when those who are in the discussion have different languages. I hope that if you reply this, the reply will not be of the mocking kind. I prefer that, you see… 🙂
Ravenghost:
If you are not interested in facts or evidence then do the rest of us a favor and stay out of discussions involving them KTHX.
Fez: I said that I would like a discussion without any mocking (after all we are not kids), but you are certainly behaving childish when you are mocking me because of my view. I am trying to keep this discussion on a level with respect. I respect your view, so please respect my view. What is evidence? Evidence in this case, is something subjective. People have different conclusions based on what they see, hear, discover etc. even if what they see, hear or discover is the same.
If you are not interested in having an open mind and a healthy discussion, please get out of here.
Ravenghost:
There’s a saying around here: people who don’t want their beliefs ridiculed shouldn’t have such ridiculous beliefs. If you think that a god created all life on earth 6000 years ago, then you are just as wrong as someone who believes that the sky is held up by Yggdrasil.
And that’s a big problem with Christianity. You want to believe in a god, but have no good reason to do so. So you use “faith” to give yourself permission to believe in that god anyway.
If you’re asking me to give ignorance and superstition the same respect as evidence and reasoned argument, then no thanks.
Ravenghost:
That’s your problem right there: you don’t have any objective evidence, nothing tangible that you can point at and say “See? This is what we’d expect to see if there were a god.”
Either there is such a thing as a god, or there isn’t. You’re making a statement about the world, which is either true or false. But you can’t back up your statement with anything concrete, so why should anyone take your subjective feelings seriously?
Ravenghost:
Bullshit. You stormed in here with your fragile little ego, waving your battle-flag of willful ignorance, and started tossing demands in every direction. You’ve acquired yourself a highly dysfunctional working definition of “respect”.
Arensb: First of all, thank you for keeping this professional, unlike what Fez is doing… 🙂
Secondly I want to say that: yeah, you are probably right. My only evidence is my book, The Book, and that is what I believe in. Like I said; We do not understand each others language. You do not understand what faith is all about, and I do not understand the words of your science. Perhaps the reason for that is that we are not really giving it a go, because we feel to attached to what we already believe in?? Well, anyway, my agenda is only that everyone should know that there are two (at least) possibilities concerning whats right…
Ravenghost sez:
You’ve confused yourself again. The agenda you’ve demonstrated thus far is not about correct vs. incorrect, it’s about being either too scared or too intellectually stunted to seek the answers. It’s not about opening a dialog it’s about stomping your feet and demanding that you be allowed free reign to redefine terms in any way that suits you.
Your blind faith must be a great comfort to you. No mysteries to solve, no fault to assign to yourself and your actions, no real sympathy for those who may be suffering because, hey, “My big invisible sky-friend willed it to be so.”
Ravenghost:
Which book? The Quran? The Kalevala? The Three Little Pigs?
Or, more likely, you mean that collection of bronze age fairy tales, the one with the talking snakes and donkeys, the one that condones slavery and mysoginy, the one that says that you shouldn’t have a retirement plan or health insurance, and that if there’s mildew in your basement, you should sprinkle birds’ blood on it.
So if that’s the only book you’ve ever read, it’s not surprising that you’re a superstitious ignoramus. What I don’t understand is why you seem proud of it, or why I should accord your views any kind of respect.
Sure I do: as Mark Twain put it, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so”. You have a nice comforting fairy tale about a magical sky-daddy who loves you and won’t let you die. You don’t have any good reason to believe in him, but you really really want to, so you tell yourself that it’s okay to believe anyway, and call that process “faith” and say that it’s a virtue.
When little children believe in Father Christmas, it’s cute and charming. When grown-ups do, it’s scary. I just hope that you’ll eventually grow up.
Hmm, I understand now that neither of you can perform the art of discussion, and I understand that this will lead nowhere, no matter what I write. We could go on like this forever. Well not forever, only until Jesus returns to the earth and saves me. You on the other hand will possible get a different encounter.
Another thing I find strange is that hmm, maybe you two are the same person. Looking at the time when you posted your last two posts one might wonder..
Fin
To the responsible of the stupid spam filter in this page: come on!!!
To you (arensb and Fez – or maybe you are the same person. Quite possible when looking at the time of your posts…): Clearly you do not know how to perform the art of discussion. One are to respect the view of others. In a discussion you are to defend your view, rather than attack the view of others. You guys/guy are like politicians. This could go on forever, well not forever, only until Jesus comes to save me (and the others whos faith is true). Imagine – what if it is true, then you will spend forever (forever is much much longer than forever in this life) burning.
Fin
To the responsible of the spam filter in this page: come on!!!
To you (arensb and Fez – or maybe you are the same person. Quite possible when looking at the time of your posts…): Clearly you do not know how to perform the art of discussion. One are to respect the view of others. In a discussion you are to defend your view, rather than attack the view of others. You guys/guy are like politicians. This could go on forever, well not forever, only until Jesus comes to save me (and the others whos faith is true). Imagine – what if it is true, then you will spend forever (forever is much much longer than forever in this life) burning.
Fin
To the responsible of the spam filter in this page: come on!!!
To you (arensb and Fez – or maybe you are the same person. Quite possible when looking at the time of your posts…): Clearly you do not know how to perform the art of discussion. One are to respect the view of others. In a discussion you are to defend your view, rather than attack the view of others. You guys/guy are like politicians. This could go on forever, well not forever, only until Jesus comes to save me (and the others whos faith is true). Imagine – what if it is true, then you will spend forever (forever is much much longer than forever in this life) burning. Fin
I was wondering when you were going to get around to the threats. It always comes to threats with you people.
That is no threat. That is just a “what if”…
And you keep telling me that I am stupid. Well I`d rather be stupid or whatever than burning alive forever.
Hmm, I wonder who is the moderator here. Seems I´ve been spammed away from this forum. Nice one, arensb…
Ravenghost spouts: [reproduced from the comment RSS feed since the original appears to have been marked as spam or trolling]
You are truly clue resistant. And paranoid. Seek help.
Meanwhile, don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!
Well, only time will tell. I am looking forward to it!
Fez & arensb: You are trying to prove that I am stupid by poiniting at so called evidence from the past and now. Well I will prove you wrong by pointing at the future, and there are no ways that you can say anything against that. Perhaps you will laugh in my face now, and I do not care, cause I will have the final laugh. Not only will it be the final laugh – the laugh will last forever.