The Official Rob Johnstone 900th post thread

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I like how you added shitface at the end. You never proved jack shit. If you want to discuss the creation/evolution topic again I would be happy to.

 

--Rob

[Guest MrRant]

I like how you added shitface at the end. You never proved jack shit. If you want to discuss the creation/evolution topic again I would be happy to.

 

--Rob

But then you would be humiliated. AGAIN.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

no, then you guys will dance around my questions again. This is how it went the first time, I was not trying to prove creation, I was merely trying to tell you that you cannot prove evolution. Both are religions and you cannot prove either. You all treated it as though I was trying to prove creation which I was not. There are points on both sides of the coin that no one can explain. So how can I be "humiliated. AGAIN."?

 

--Rob

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I was merely trying to tell you that you cannot prove evolution.

 

Even though I gave documented proof of an example of evolution? It's not a religion. A religion involves a leap of faith. Evolution is fact.

 

EDIT: As a reference point, here's the thread that's been referred to a couple of times. Pages 2-5 are the best, IIRC. There's a couple of Robstone gems in there, one of which essentially saying "I don't care about all the facts you guys have put forth after I asked for them, I believe what I believe and that's that, NYAH!"

 

Also, the God is a Lesbian section is worth a read.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Evolution is not fact because there are things that evolution can't explain. Also, yes evolution is a religion. I believe in a creator, you believe in things spawning on their own. Are you telling me it sounds stupid for there to be a creator, but it's not stupid to think that I evolved from dirt? Has anyone in history ever recorded anything evolving? That's the point about creation, it's a perfect loophole to blame it on billions of years and not explain shit. When you wanna go again, you let me know.

 

--Rob

 

--Rob

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Has anyone in history ever recorded anything evolving?

 

Rob, Page two of the thread linked in my post.

 

Reread that thread, then decide if you want to keep arguing about it.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

here is my response on the peppered moth.

 

"Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited."

 

SO what's next?

 

--Rob

 

P.S. If a fucking moth is your only proof you better start looking for something else to believe in.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I could say the same about you basing your belief system on a novel.

 

Also, I think all chances of a constructive discussion went out the window with this comment:

 

I could care less about what you ass's think. I cannot prove my theories and that is fine. I let faith do that for me. But, you can't prove yours either so I guess we will be talking about this for a while.

 

--Rob

 

Anyway, if you feel like reading, feel free to have a look at these articles:

 

Horses

Talkorigins.org FAQ

[Guest RobJohnstone]

"Marsh’s Horse Series (1870s). Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged them in a small-to-large evolutionary series, which was never in a straight line (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976 ed., Vol. 7, p. 13). Although displayed in museums for a time, the great majority of scientists later repudiated this "horse series" (Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105; G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, 1960, p. 149)."

 

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

 

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

 

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96."

 

You see, I am asking you about frogs turing into dogs and roaches turning into dolphins. You are giving me the same species adapting. We call this micro-evolution and does not prove your monkey into man nonsense. Show me a pidgeon turn into a whale, or better yet how about acually showing me some proof.

 

--Rob

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Well, it was right in front of you, but typically, you either missed it or ignored it.

 

29 Evidences of Macroevolution.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

i'm sorry call me stupid but I would need days to go through that page with a dictionary and a thesaures trying to decrypt it. Lot's of mombo jumbo going on there. Like I have said in the past, I am not the best person to argue creation over evolution, but i'll do my best. The only thing I did understand was that the person who was making creation arguements on that page was mr. duane gish. I do not support his claims because I feel he goes about it the wrong way. Now Dr. Kent Hovind is offering $250,000 to anyone that can prove evolution. If he was on that page I would say, hey you may be right. Since I cannot comprehend that page you submitted before me, how about we move on.

 

Now if I can think back to 9th grade science, I believe it says "It takes 100,000 years for a red giant to evolve into a white dwarf". Can you explain

 

"Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star—today it is a white dwarf star. Since today’s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf."?

 

How about

 

"The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents."

 

or

 

"The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years."

 

Let me know, thanks

 

--Rob

[Guest SP-1]

While I'm not going to get into the debate (simply: it's Christmas and I don't feel like getting into a heated debate), I'd like to point out that just at a glance, the link you presented used "Evidences" and "Possible Morphologies".

 

This tells that what is being presented is as much theory as other things in science. While I wholeheartedly agree in micro-evolution, adaptation, etc., Macro is very much theory, as is Darwinism. Not all science is fact. Much of science is conclusion agreed upon until a better conclusion can be agreed upon.

 

Rob: if you're representing a man of faith on this forum, I submit that you're not doing such a hot job there, hoss. While I cannot say much about the use of language, you seem to use it offhand. Using it sparingly, when a heated reaction is warranted, is questionable, but just tossing it out there damages your integrity.

 

Be slow to speak, brother. And consider your anger deeply, and examine it closely before giving it voice. And think before you post. For the good of us all who are here, representing Christ. I know I needn't remind you that you do not represent a system of beliefs, you are representing a living God, your KING, when you present the beliefs that are based upon Him. You are an Ambassador. Act like it.

 

SP

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The red giant bit has to do with Astronomy, which is in no way my strong point, and obviously not "evolution" as we're arguing. I imagine that there's countless factors that go into the "life" of a star regarding size and color and all. I'm not an astronomer, though. So answering that will take some looking.

 

About the moon, we're getting into astronomy again, but I think there's several theories as to how the moon actually formed. We can measure its distance from the earth without any trouble, though. IF the earth and moon were in amazingly close proximity like that, of course gravity would do some insane things to the planet's crust. The thing is, I doubt it was ever that close. Don't quote me on this, but one theory states that the moon formed around the same time as the earth, only at a distance. Centrifugal force would dictate that it's gradually moving away from us, which it is. Also, and again I'm not an expert on the subject, but if the moon were that close at one point, I doubt it could ever free itself from that position. Gravity would just bring it closer and closer. There's a point in space named L7 where gravity between the earth and moon balances out. I serious doubt the moon was ever any close to earth than that point.

 

Oil and rocks. Say the rock surrounding an area of oil does in fact collapse. The oil would just move through the rock to a new area. If you're referring to the pressure of the oil against the rock surrounding it, it would be exerting that force on all surfaces, which is why it blasts out like a geyser when we tap into a pocket of the stuff.

 

Hell, oil itself could be good reasoning against a young earth theory. I might be wrong (although I doubt it) but it takes MILLENIA for oil to be produced from biological material. Hence why it's not a renewable resource.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Regarding theory, much of science is theory, but that doesn't mean it's just a guess. It's a hypothesis until there's evidence to back it up, like the previous link. When something is accepted as theory, it's pretty much facts with some missing pieces that haven't been found yet. Missing pieces is still more to me than just blind faith.

[Guest SP-1]

As I said, I wasn't looking for a debate. Not today at any rate. Perhaps tomorrow or later on, provided the thread is still kicking, I'll offer my views and convictions and an explanation on the nature of faith -- true faith, not what faith is percieved to be. I find that there is a misconception based almost purely on the technical definition of the word amongst non-Christians.

 

But not today, friends. Today I celebrate. Today I rejoice, and rest, and count my blessings. Good day.

 

in Him, Merry Christmas,

 

SP

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Evolution is false.

 

Proof: Rob Johnstone.

 

[Guest EL BRUJ0]

This thread is gheyer than Olsen Twins Kiddie Porn.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

this thread is as ghey as an Elton John concert

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Evolution is false.

 

Proof: Rob Johnstone.

 

I'm glad you add so much to the conversation. If you think I am wrong, argue the point. Don't just call people names without a reason or rebuttle. Someone needs to grow up here.

 

--Rob

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I should smoke some SOCIALIST MARIJUANA and then call you back.

 

It's not my problem that you're a Creationist.

 

It's not my problem that you're a consistant jackass

 

Let me connect your posts to a problem.

 

Reading your posts causes the braincells of forum members to die

 

Lack of intelligence causes socialism

 

therefore, your posts are socialist.

 

HOW DO YOU FEEL NOW SUCKA!?!?!?! You socialist! Hell, after that, you should use some Carbon 14 on yourself and see if you're 15,000 years old. Then you can watch some Socialist Television and eat a Socialist turkey (Turkey meat makes you groggy and lazy) and then you can masturbate and since that makes you lazy and tired, it's socialist!

 

Johnstone,

 

it's not that I think you're wrong, it's that I think you're a complete horses ass and I was making a joke at your expense to say that you were unevolved.

 

to quote you..

 

"I'm telling you, pat buchanen is what we need in office."

 

to quote myself about that quote..

 

"What a jackass! Rob Stone, arch-conservative, voting for Pat Buchanan, advocate of no war with Iraq. He must have eaten paint chips when he was a kid"

 

Don't worry RobStone, we know you don't have a clue. We know that you can't take a joke.

 

Geez RobStone.. your telling me to grow up.. well, you need to get a fucking clue.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I am not insulting you my friend. Bash me all you want but if you can't make a positive arguement then just stop posting. If you think I am wrong, PROVE IT. Otherwise just don't speak. BTW, I know you want to join TSM cool club but just bashing me without reason makes you look like a horses backside.

 

--Rob

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I am not insulting you mt friend

 

Someone needs to grow up here.

 

Uh.. what did you say RobStone?

 

if that wasn't meant as an insult to me, was it meant as an insult to you?

 

just bashing me without reason makes you look like a horses backside.

 

You'd be an expert on looking like a horses ass, wouldn't you?

[Guest RobJohnstone]

another insult with nothing to back it up. Your very good at this aren't you?

 

--Rob

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

*resists replying with "Yeah, I'm good at this, much better than your grammar"*

 

RobStone, what do you ask of me?

 

you want me to state some of the same stuff you got earlier when you had your evolution/creation debate?

 

Just cuddle with some Carbon 14 and think that Man walked with the Dinosaurs. Oooook?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Now, let me say that I am not bashing you for your faith. I also have Christian beliefs. I am bashing you because you are an idiot.

 

oh yeah.. the fact that you started a damn thread to celebrate your post count is really lame.

 

The purpose of this thread, as you state it, is to celebrate.

 

Who the fuck is celebrating? We don't have a RobJohnstone fan club here, do we?

 

I'm gonna probably go to bed soon, it's 2:45 here.

 

I'll sleep, which is being lazy, which is socialist. Sleep is socialist. "All good John Birchers must stay awake for 5 days straight!"

[Guest RobJohnstone]

ok here's the deal. I don't believe I have ever showed you any disrespect. Just because of the fact that I have different beliefs and opinions than you doesn't mean you should should try to make me look bad to boost your own self esteem. Although you may think you have gotten the better of me because you think your beliefs are better than mine, it does not give you or anyone the right to badger me. If you are going to insult me, please have a reason better than, "You think different than me but my ideas are better" or something along those lines. In closing I would like to say, let's stop the childish nonsense. If you want to argue your opinions against mine I will be happy to do so but, you must realize that it is just opinions that we are discussing. Thank you

 

--Rob

[Guest subliminal_animal]

So do people only hate this guy over the creationism/evolution thing? The way he says things is kind of funny and odd-sounding, and I'd bet some people might take him more seriously if he were able to express himself less odd-soundingly.

 

When I got back to the topic to respond, the topic changed on to how jesus might have been a midget and god was a lesbian. There is no need for me to debate any further when such asshole remarks were made.

"Asshole remarks" is a hilarious term. So is the fact that any topic could change into that.

 

yes, a guy who has a link to a message board called "The Socialists Sancuary" in his sig is calling thing I do ghey. Your opinion really matters to me.

 

--Rob

Rob are you blind? there's a fucking "T" right there.

 

 

dumbass.

blah, your going to critique me for missing a letter in a post. Get a life.

 

--Rob

considering your the one that attepmted to critique m, that post is laughable.

I daresay Rob wins on that occasion, by irony.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

You know, I always thought what I write here comes off sounding odd. If I could only express myself with paper like I do with voice I believe my opinions would come off stronger.

 

--Rob

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

So do people only hate this guy over the creationism/evolution thing? The way he says things is kind of funny and odd-sounding, and I'd bet some people might take him more seriously if he were able to express himself less odd-soundingly.

 

When I got back to the topic to respond, the topic changed on to how jesus might have been a midget and god was a lesbian. There is no need for me to debate any further when such asshole remarks were made.

"Asshole remarks" is a hilarious term. So is the fact that any topic could change into that.

 

yes, a guy who has a link to a message board called "The Socialists Sancuary" in his sig is calling thing I do ghey. Your opinion really matters to me.

 

--Rob

Rob are you blind? there's a fucking "T" right there.

 

 

dumbass.

blah, your going to critique me for missing a letter in a post. Get a life.

 

--Rob

considering your the one that attepmted to critique m, that post is laughable.

I daresay Rob wins on that occasion, by irony.

Rob proved he's fucking blind that's all.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

yep, that's me.

 

--Rob