News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

asdf

Russ you're yanking my chain.
How much money does he get from people for this LOL.

You're funny.

A contract is defined as two parties who mutually agree to exchange something. If people want to pay to hear solid information about world history and the fallacies of the evolution faith, great.

The world would be a better place without deception.

You know Linda, you could make some enquires about the cost and who knows, maybe you'd be tempted to go along. Take a camera, a packed lunch and a smile

I'd love to. Presumably they support their "students" questioning what they are being "taught." Unfortunately though this would mean paying them money. I think I prefer not to fund the perpetuation of ignorance among the young.

On a more serious note, some of these young people (presuming somebody does want to pay to attend this) could possess bright, talented scientific minds. They will never get the chance to use them, nor will they ever be able to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge, if they are being taught that scientists are conspiring liars and whatever anyone says about the world is wrong if it conflicts with their holy book. That doesn't elicit any chuckles from me.

No and it doesn't elicit any chuckles from me that your comments here are based upon bias opinions only and are far more accurately align with what is happening in science classrooms across the globe with the evolutionary belief taught as though it is "fact". They are not taught to ask questions, they accept it because they're told. Creation on the other hand exposes it and causes people to start questioning some of what they are being taught. So your post above doesn't even come close to describing the truth about creation.

On the other hand, creation is now helping children see the other side and causing them to ask questions, which is what elicits so much anger and annoyance from people like yourself Linda. I am sure you're aware that most of these young people who will be attending this venture have already been exposed to and taught evolution don't you? So what are you fraid of? Since they already know the apparent "Truth". Are you scared that if they hear the other side they may have a chance to make up their own mind, based up all sides of the argument, when you would prefer they only heard "one"?

Since I was also brought up with evolution here and there, I never knew there was another side. I was very glad to hear it and to be able to think for myself and consider either. Not that I am overly scientific, but I still have an opinion, I can still look at the so-called facts and come to my own conclusion. I have a right to do that and I think everybody does.

I'm all for people questioning what they are taught. The problem is that, as many will have noticed here, creationism has no answers as to why things like radiometric dating and the sorting of the fossil record are wrong, they just . . . are. CTD is the only one here who has attempted to explain how radiometric dating is wrong, but unfortunately for him all he has demonstrated is that he doesn't understand the mathematics behind it.

What this again seems to boil down to is that creationism claims the vast majority of scientists and the body of scientific knowledge are wrong but can't explain how, and doesn't have any answers for why it is contradicted by physical evidence. A person truly questioning what they are being told might wonder, for instance, why they are being told that the earth is 6000 years old when the half-lives of isotopes that are used to date the earth are measured in millions of years . . . but it's likely that such a person will know nothing about radiometric dating apart from "it's all lies," which is what they would "learn" at a camp like this presumably.

Kent Hovind's claims are peppered with scientific misunderstandings and fallacies. It's disturbing that he wants these to be passed on to others. I've told you that he thinks the sun burns by combustion.

I also suspect that the theory of evolution will be presented as "dogs giving birth to cats" and "hateful atheist scientists who want everyone to reject the Bible." I can have a little chuckle there at least, imagining all the absurd things these guys will probably come up with. I suppose anyone who is willing to pay for it deserves what they get, even if it's kids who don't know what an igneous rock is but who will tell you that God created it.

Hey LindaLou,

Which, of course, means that we can question the dickens out of the way that Hovind "teaches" material, whether he uses truth and honest facts or whether he keeps misrepresenting reality, like his video on the Grand Canyon etc.

It also means that creationists who want to question teaching methods should also be questioning the Hovind method ...

Enjoy.

Right...

Your history indicates otherwise.
Can you produce any such claim?


A person truly questioning doesn't refuse to look at evidence. Neither do such persons lie and try to change the subject continuously. It's no coincidence that persons truly attempting to give answers avoid these practices as well.

An odd presumption. There's plenty more one could say about evodates. A lot depends on how sophisticated the questioner is, but even simple people can learn the basic flaws behind the assumptions, if they care.

Now there are people who don't care, but I doubt any of them are interested in this topic, rather by definition.
How willing you are to believe that which you choose to imagine... But then this forum wouldn't exist if people weren't inclined to do exactly that.

If it exists, God created it. Common knowledge. I suppose you'd prefer folks to think everything magically evolved, but I don't see how you can assume any educated reader would prefer it.

If you do honestly believe that creationists can explain how scientists and the body of scientific knowledge are wrong, we're all waiting. There are several threads now asking you to do so. You have so far not shown that the decay rate of uranium has changed over time, for example, nor have you been able to deal with dating of the Grand Canyon and uplift, but if you'd like to return to the dedicated threads and carry on the conversations you're welcome to do so.



Quite right. You and Russ keep saying "it's so simple." But you can't explain how. You like telling everyone here that you've proved things when you haven't. If you want to claim that the earth is 6000 years old then you're going to have to do more than sweep "evodates" under the rug with ad hominem and faulty maths.

If you honestly believe I've ever said any body of scientific knowledge is wrong, why don't you prove it? Otherwise, this is just more of the same thing you've been doing all along, isn't it?

Really? I don't recall a single one.

Nor have I claimed it. More of the same...

Carry on what? Showing things clearly only to have a pack of liars pretend not to see? That gets old.

You like wasting our time. Even on the rare occasions when you see your fantasy won't work, you just leap to anything you can find. As long as you're sure it's false, you don't care what it is.

Just because you pretend things haven't been demonstrated, do you really expect me to go along? Why in the world would I? It's a lot easier to tell such tales to someone who has some motive to believe them, or at least can believe them. Me telling you you're actually a billy goat makes just as much sense. You can't believe it because you know it isn't true.

Your scam lies in ruins, and you all know it. To openly lie about math anyone could either do or easily verify indicates this, and leaves no room for doubt. Your cause is lost, and everyone knows it. I'll not pretend otherwise. In case you need it spelled out even more clearly, I'll not pretend you do not know evolutionism is an utterly false religion. Your actions are inconsistent with those of one who lacks this knowledge.

What a load of waffle.

Of course you're claiming that the decay rate of uranium has changed over time, I've been reading that thread. If it hasn't, it means the earth is billions of years old, and your ideology does not permit you to accept that.

Like I said, stop claiming "it's so easy" and prove it. Go to the relevant threads and try again to put a case together for why science is wrong (as it has to be if your YEC claims are correct).

Yep, good point, LindaLou. If it's just so abundantly apparent and the various fields of science have it all wrong and are liars, by all means show us the error of their ways. Russ at one point indicated that it's not that easy, that you have to spend years entrenched in libraries and to research numerous conspiracy theories to come to these secret, hidden revelations. Now he's claiming it's ridiculously obvious and that it's all a big bag of lies. Great, show us the ease with which it's incorrect. Show me tangible, scientific, non-biblical evidence -- PROOF -- that our dear planet is a mere 6,000 years old and that the history books (and remember, CTD claims history is evidence) are wrong when they talk about the vast multitude of human civilizations and dwellings predating this time period.

And you haven't seen me make that claim. You have only RAZD's word for it, and we all know what that's worth.

According to you and RAZD. So what?

I never said science was wrong either. Science is not an entity that it can be wrong. It can be misapplied; it can lead to inconclusive results; it can be misinterpreted. I know of no way for it to just up & be wrong.

Since you're putting words in my mouth, why don't you prove science is wrong yourself, and say I did it? Might be problematic (as one would have to understand what science is) but give it a shot. I like to laugh.