99% evolutionists, suggestion for site maker

quote:

---

The initial concept was a site where any view was permitted and the only requirements were to follow forum guidelines, which were to be neutral with regard to viewpoint. The reality has been that Creationists have found one of the guidelines to be especially daunting:

​

'Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided.'

​

For the most part, Creationists have been unable to muster evidence to support their positions, with the unfortunate result that most give up and move on, or never join in the first place.

---

1. But nothing supernatural is considered as supporting evidence for our argument. So when we use the supernatural as part of our argument, we are breaking the rules. Bottom line is that one cannot debate as a literalist creationist without breaking the rules. Yes, we creationists have varied views on how things happened, but if you want creationists here, that's what you're going to get. We do not believe all of the physics and science of mainstream majority. We believe supernatural factors overide some scientific natural explanations in different areas.2. Since evolutionists are the overwhelming majority here, you all should consider what it is like for one or two creationists in a multiple page thread to keep up with responding to seven or eight opponents, the majority of whom are often insolent, demanding and arrogant when the creationist debates on the basis of the supernatural. If you all were a little more tolerant and would make a little effort to help the minority view feel welcome, you all might have someone to talk to besides yourselves.3. You who administrate are, imo, the ones who discourage creationists the most and make us feel unwelcome. You demand we follow the rules which are keyed to the secularist ideology of how things came to be and how things function in the universe. Nobody but nobody can be sure of all the unknowns affecting modern dating theories as to what was going on in the universe scores of millions to billions of years ago. You all can no more prove your theories than we can. We could all debate them, but unless the creationist backs up with evidence suitable with you, we are out of line.

quote:

---

Oh, no, not another supporter of crazy Dr. Dino.
You do know that he has a bogus degree from the so-called "Patriot University" which operates out of a split level, don't you?

---

..........And did you know that home schoolers achieve higher average sat scores than sophisticated expensively equipped and renouned public schools?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-08-2003]

quote:

---

Kent Hovind FAQs: Examining "Dr. Dino"

---

A review of this link gives rise to the notion that creationists, in order to get an alternative education to the one sided extremely biased exclusiveistic evolution mills of accredited institutions, one must either learn at home or resort to unaccredited sources such as some cited in the link. But, like home schools, some of these may actually provide a broader and more educated education than the accredited institutions.

quote:

---

Buz, we are talking about a Doctoral degree.

​

A PhD.

​

A PhD is a very advanced degree that very few college graduates ever manage to acheive. It usually takes about 5 years of constant research, writing, teaching, and analysis, with the first 3 or so also requiring many hours of intensive, specialized and advanced coursework taught by experts in the field.

---

Look Schraf. You needn't apprise me as to what a doctorate is. You totally missed the implication of my point/post that exclusivistic educational institutions who narrowmindedly indoctrinate their young impressionable student's minds with information limited to the narrow minded approach those institutions use may leave the graduate less informed as to knowledge and truth than less accredited schools of thought cover in their curriculum. The same is true with home schools in some cases as compared with public schools.

quote:

---

A child who is home schooled is being taught arithmatic, spelling, history and the like. Very basic literacy-type stuff. Not highly specialized, "becoming a highly trained expert in a particular field" type stuff.

---

.........And chemistry, and science, (including alternative scientific views) and biology, and history (often with broader views such as much founder material which has been removed in recent decades from public school textbooks). Besides, the home schooled child receives a great deal more individual attention, allowing for questions on a very wide variety of subjects to be researched and answered by the parent teacher. Likely the same often holds true with small higer educational institutions.

quote:

---

Patriot University is not a "home school for adults seeking a high-quality Doctoral education".

​

It is a diploma mill where people who want to buy a degree without study, expense, or effort go to get it.

---

That it was not accredited does not mean Hovind did not study there. He explains that it was more than a home when he attended.

quote:

---

What, do you think that Kent Hovind's parents home schooled him so long that he earned a PhD or something? Besides, home schooled children still have to demonstrate the same mastery of subjects as all of the public school children if they want to graduate.

​

In other words, the home schooled kids are still held to the requirements of an accredited public school.

---

........And, don't forget, with a record of higher SAT score averages.

quote:

---

By contrast, Patriot University is not required to educate any of it's students in any partuclar way or maintain any particular standard of quality, because it is not an accredited educational institution.

---

But, like homeschools and unlike accredited institutions they are not subjected to the narrow mindset of the accredited institutions in their curriculum. Thus my point that they may end up with a broader, higher degree range of knowledge. [quote] .........And who have been a number of the greatest renouned inspirational evangelists and preachers of Christianity's past? Undegreed notables such as:
1. First and formost, Jesus himself, founder.
2. Most of the apostles of Jesus.
3. Charles Wesley
4. Gypsie Smith of England
5. Billy Sunday
6. Dwight Moody
7. Charles Finney
8. David Livingstone
9. Hudson Taylor
10. David Brainard
11. George Whitman
.......To name a few.

quote:

---

BTW, would you want your personal Physician to have gotten his/her degrees from Patriot University?

---

Likely I couldn't do worse than with conventional medicine practitioners who've been mass produced/educated in drug cartel driven money hungry knife/needle/pill medical institutions which are programming into the practitioners of modern medicine the agenda of expensive treatment of symptoms rather than treating/solving causes.Conventional medical practioners bury their mistakes and those terminal patients who do survive their sophisticated quakery must often turn to wholistic naturalpathic alternatives for any hope of recovery or survival.So to your last question, Schraf, the last person I'd want me or my children as health advisor/practitioner is a PHD doc. We have raised our children healthfully and successfully and kept ourselves well with our knowledge of alternative medicine, i.e herbal, supplemental, and natural remedies for sickness.Injury is quite another matter. The docs are good for putting broken parts back together, but after that, get me home ASAP before they pump me full of harmful pills, serums and other stuff.

quote:

---

I should hope not! A PhD doc is a researcher. The doctors you see in the hospital have an MD, not a PhD.

---

Rrhain, you got me there. I stand corrected. Wasn't thinking. What else can I say, but, thanks for correcting me.