damn it. im starting to think that im a freakin genius. how can be a student be this dumb?? like they are repeating same bullcrap over and over again without understanding of what they have just said. thats sad... America i hope the next generatino will not be this dumb :/
@donfanto1 get it right moron i said everyone that argued with him I DID'NT SEE ANY PROFESSORS AND EVEN SO NO ONE CAN PROVE EVOLUTION IS RIGHT SO WHATS UR POINT? THEY ARE IDIOTS!! THE MAN IS TRYING TO HELP THEM AND ALL THEY CAN DO INSTEAD OF LISTEN AND SAY FROM THE HEART FAIR ENOUGH IS ARGUE WITH A GUY THAT IS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND IF U NOTICED HE PUT THEM IN THEIR PLACE AND UNDERSTAND IM NOT STICKING UP FOR HOVIND IM SAYING IT LIKE IT IS OR ARE U SEEING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM ME??
@bellhairrat1 well sorry i misundertood what uve said. and btw in the end they named the number of the proffesors in the university that refesed to debate him
However you need to understand that idiots and con men like Kent Hovind give the real scientists like Martin Gaskell and Martin Nowak a bad name.
Titus 1 : 11
"They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain."
The women with the doctorate should know that genes are not as homologues as once thought in cross species comparisons in terms of similar function for similar gene, and that in fact the gene centered view is now being challenged by an overwhelming body of recent post ENCODE data, and is especially being challenged by the same evo devo biology she claims is the backbone of evolutionary development. See Stuart Newman and the Altenberg 16 summit and Epigenetics.
@ScientificBob The differences is evolution is the biggest delusion of them all. If you had an open mind and learned just how bad the theory is you'd be a creationist too. Every SINGLE point of evolution, minus micro which is actually supported, has been disproven. That is a fact whether you believe it or not. Get educated not indoctrinated!
« Every SINGLE point of evolution [...] has been disproven »
Ehr, on the contrary: all available observational data in biology and palaeontology supports the central hypotheses of evolutionary theory. No data known currently contradicts these central hypotheses.
@randont "Every SINGLE point of evolution has been disproven" Can you name one aspect of the theory that has been disproven? And explain how it disproves evolution theory.
"Get educated not indoctrinated" Says the guy thinks the bible is the answer to everything.
Read a History book. ''By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.''
It does not do any good to debate brainwased people. Kent won't look at the evidence. ''Fossils just mean something died.'' No Kent, it means something lived in the past.
as i am watching this and realizing how terrible the logic of some of the students in questioning Kent Hovind and they are really missing the point of what is being said. That said I am disappointed that Kent Hovind couldn't answer the Big Daddy question about list of experts. If Kent Hovind makes a claim, he should be able to back it up, but this is no way comes close to nullifying his message. It was a minor detail that he screwed up but Kent totally blasted text books and people shuld note
@Stan6468 Kent thinks the eath is 6000 years old ! It is millions of years old, geologist found that out 200 years ago. The universe 13 billion years old. Tree rings and civilizations go back 10,000 years.
Kent is wrong. Search kent hovind debunked and you computer will overload and crash.
@gregrutz There is a time in a person life where one must decide to deal with facts or fiction and I am a person that only deals with facts. I am not a great fan of Kent Hovind but i admit, he is alot more honest than most. Let's deal with facts. You said they have proven 200 yrs ago the Earth is 13 Billions of yrs old. There is no dating method to date that is accurate. Carbon dating is only good for few thousands of years and even liberal old age Scienctists admit that now.
@Stan6468 Kent Hovind is one of the worst liars on YouTube. Geologists 200 years ago started looking at the history recorded in the rock and discovered the earth was millions of years old. Way before radiometric dating was invented.
So nuclear chemists told them it is 4,545 million years old + or - 2 million years. Assuming the earth is the same age as the solar system.
Astronomers say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Let's keep our facts straight.
@gregrutz Really? Just what scientific method did these "geologists" 200 years ago use to determine that age? Tree rings? LOL Tree rings do not measure years....tree rings measure growth spurts...basically when water and nutrients were plentiful....there can be more than 3 rings per year...tree rings are completely unreliable as age indicators. The rest of your post is just as silly. BTW, I just laughed when you used the word "assuming"....yep...that is your whole argument....LOL
@KJVWordofGod "Just what scientific method did these "geologists" 200 years ago use to determine that age" How about erosion? Things like the grand canyon don't really form overnight. How about deposit layers? Those things also take a lot of time to form. From these two things alone, one can conclude that it's pretty much impossible for the earth to be younger then several million years.
@gregrutz "Assuming the earth is the same age as the solar system"
There isn't even a solar system because the sun goes round the Earth. Actually, it's not possible to scientifically "prove" that the Earth goes round the Sun or that the Sun goes round the Earth. And what I've just said is not BS. Check it out for yourself.
@gregrutz There is reason for using circle instead of sphere (which translators could have legitimately used) and that is that no-one can sit above a sphere, it being 3D. If you were above a part of the sphere you wouldn't be above most of the rest of it. God is above everything, can view all things at the same time, nothing being hidden from him.
Also, He doesn't hide Himself from us if we seek Him. The ancients didn't believe in a flat earth, the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth!
@copperload In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to observe that Venus showed all phases, just like the Moon. He thought that while this observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system, it was a natural consequence of the heliocentric system.
When I look down at a basketball I don't remark, "now its a circle from here!" You would think the creator of the universe would be more straight forward and just say "I put a spherical earth in a solar system orbiting bigger object, I call this gravity." instead of some bullshit like, "And He who so looks from ye heaven to a circle in the sky" or some cryptic babble. And if God is 'above' everything from which angle does he view the earth?? there is no up or down space dumbass.
@superwowie111 Evolution is a lie that is not founded on science, but inferences, lies and inferences. I don't know your position but you speak like an evolutionist. Not sensible
@copperload You seriously are questioning whether the earth revolves around the sun or not? Damn..... I rest my case against religious ignorance. You proved it to me that religion makes people stupid, not uninformed, but stupid. Like the other dude said; are you willing to think the stars travel around the earth (at SUPER speeds since they are so far away) since the earth doesnt move? OMG, I am stunned by this, im going to share it. wow..
Well, what about God coming to Earth from Heaven, dying and being raised to life again, breaking the curse on creation brought about by man's sin so that you can live forever?
You probably don't believe that either. By the way, What is a SUPER speed? What is "your" maximum speed for a celestial body to travel in space? I am stunned by your lack of imagination, that you can't accept that what I am saying "might" be true. There is "proof" neither for geocentrism nor heliocentrism.
@gregrutz "Now as an undergraduate at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, I'd taken enough relativity theory to know that neither heliocentrism nor geocentricity could be proven or disproven" This was written by one scientist; a scientist; a proper scientist. Was he right or wrong?
Don't answer straight away but seek an honest opinion from other sources and see if it is in fact "provable" that either heliocentrism or geocentrism is correct.
@copperload "This was written by one scientist; a scientist; a proper scientist. Was he right or wrong?" Wrong if he means that both ideas are equally valid. Right if he means that everything in science is tentative.
@copperload I dont even want to debate someone who doesnt believe that the earth revolves around the sun. I got better things in my life than worrying about you but yesterday I was just amazed, today I dont care.
@seanturpin01 I'm glad; the last I would want is for you to worry, but if you are serious in your search for the truth which is what science purports to be about, ask around and you will see that it just isn't possible to prove either view. I realise this is news to most but it demonstrates that science for a very long time has been forced to adopt a "way" of thinking, that way being contrary to the ideas contained in the Bible.
@copperload "Well, what about God coming to Earth from Heaven, dying and being raised to life again, breaking the curse on creation brought about by man's sin so that you can live forever"
Yeah... gonna have to call 'bullocks' on that one. Not only does it seem completely pointless (an actual all-powerfull god wouldn't require a blood sacrifice to forgive folks from a crime that was committed by ancestors many many MANY generations ago), it's also retarded.
@copperload "There is "proof" neither for geocentrism nor heliocentrism."
Yet, both are falsifiable. And while it's easy to falsify geocentrism, it seems pretty much impossible to falsify heliocentrism. The orbit of ALL the celestial bodies in the solar system can be VERY ACCURATLY predicted. Not only that, we USE the gravitational pull of these bodies to travel accross the system. To be able to do that, you NEED to know exactly where which body is going to be at which time.
@copperload "your lack of imagination, that you can't accept that what I am saying "might" be true"
My imagination (or lack thereof) is irrelavent to the truth of your claims. If you are correct, then you should be able to DEMONSTRATE it. My imagination (or lack thereof) is irrelavent.
Although I will point out that the fact that you think it IS relevant, hurts your credibility. A lot.
@copperload Sorry if it sounds rude, but seriously this is like finding a diamond in the ruff hearing somenoe say that it hasnt been proven that the earth revolves around the sun. Anti-heliocentric people DO exist! WOW
@gregrutz Part 2 The next fact The other dating method is potassium Argon of which is supposed to the best i quess. This they have tested by using rocks from the Lava flows on Mt St Helens and even today there are only 30 some yrs old but that dating method showed millions of yrs old, way off the mark for known dates. This is documented. There are many Scientists who study Silt that flow into Oceans from rivers all over the world and they have found small build ups. Part 3 next
@Stan6468 "The other dating method is potassium Argon of which is supposed to [be] the best i quess. This they have tested by using rocks from the Lava flows on Mt St Helens ..."
You deal only in facts? OK.
Google the following and read the article it finds: 'Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite' by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. You'll find a properly reasoned argument demonstrating why K-Ar dating has NOT been shown to be unreliable.
@gregrutz Part 3 The build up of Silt should be enormous but they are small and the build up correlates to 6,000 to 10,000 yrs old, this is a huge promblem for old age Earth. There is more as the Mitochondrial DNA or the study of population growth and the Niagra falls and Dead Sea and Carbon 14 in the Atomsphere and the more, all point to evidence that the Earth is young--not old. Be a student and study all the Evidence and you will see that there is more to this. Thank You
@Stan6468 You would thing that the most silt, mud and sediments would be in the middle of the oceans, right?
So in the 1950s scientists went looking and what they found was that the more toward the middle of the Atlantic ocean the LESS sediments there were and the younger the was. When they mapped the magnetic fields and dated the magnetic flip flops of the poles it was clear that the ocean floor is spreading, they had confirmed plate tectonics. The can also calculate how many million years.
Kent Hovind would destroy Hitchens due to the logical agrument of Creationism, It would not matter if it was Hovind or any other Creationist because to look at the evidence only points to the fact of Creationism. Kent Hovind is right in saying the men of Evolution are liars, and they get caught but people do not listen and have closed minds. If people would think critically and logically then people would listen more but that will never happen.
Um, Kent Hovind is not a scientist. His crack pot theories have been debunked point, by point, by point. Whenever he gets stomped in a debate he simply says "Well, the Bible is the infallable word of God and that trumps science and proof". The guy is a fraud.
Lincoln on Slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery." --- March 14, 1861
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." --- September 15, 1858
He will attack one or two words of a response as a rebuttal without rebutting against the point of the statement- then when the other person comes back he directs the conversation to another pont. It is almost impossible to get him to stay on one topic for more than one or two sentences. If scientists tried to debate each other like this they would never get anywhere. He is very skilled at what he does - I woulder if he ever debated Hitchens - that would have been something to see.
You have to give it to Hovind - he is very smart and can think very quickly and is a master of twisting words, pulling tangents into argument, insisting things are different from reality, making crazy analogies and the use of effective debating tactics. He continually frustrates the professors because he only acts like he is debating their facts when he is really just talking around them. He is really impressive to watch. I wonder who he is debating in prison?
@damrak1969 What words does he twist? All he said is that the lies should be taken out of the textbooks. Darwinists can't debate what he says so instead they attack his character like "oh well he's in jail hahaha" or he is a "tax fraud" etc.
@JamesRideout123 "What words does he twist" Every word that he uses in the context of some scientific strawmen. Wich is pretty much everything he has to say about science.
"All he said is that the lies should be taken out of the textbooks." No, no. He also asks to put HIS lies in.
Religion is not science. When Hovind submits a peer reviewed study, or even a few, he will have some credibility. But he simply twists other people's data to fit his narrative. Would you trust somebody who hasn't done their own research and merely copies others while putting their own spin on it? There is a reason Hovind is not a scientist and is simply a theologian. He might know the Bible, but he refuses to follow the scientific method
Kent Hovind has proven time and time again that he is not a coward nor is he hiding anything.
The Darwinists cannot say the same. In one argument I saw 3 Professors go against Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind doesn't need his "buddies" to prove a point.
@JamesRideout123 So do you approve of rape? As long as you pay the victims father 50 silver pieces, or, if the rape happened inside a city, both the victim and rapist is stoned to death. Do you believe in slavery, as long as they're kept a certain way? Do you think it's ok to kill people who work on the sabbath, that says "Oh my god", believe something else than you, cheats on a spouse, that kills (haha), that steals, that takes pictures or paints?
@JamesRideout123 Read my second comment, Jesus himself said that you should follow the old testament. (Yes, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, like Mohammed existed. They both, were trying to implement new morals into a society that was quite different from todays)
@JamesRideout123 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
@MrSilentDoubleA I don't follow Old testament Law. The New Testament laws are good laws. In fact the law of the world we live in mostly in North America is inspired by the teachings of the New Testament a well as the Commandments. At the very least the Bible is a history book. I don't think everything needs to be taken literally I just find it funny that people who argue it always take the worst out of it and none of the good. This is also assuming Jesus himself even said that.
@JamesRideout123 The bible itself says you can't intepret, question it, or any religious authority. What's funny is, what has made humanity move forward is the questioning of authority. The American and French revolution, democracy, Gallilei, Darwin (just had to), the first universities etcetc.
@JamesRideout123 "In fact the law of the world we live in mostly in North America is inspired by the teachings of the New Testament " Do you understand what a 'secular society' is? The NT the base of american law, omg...
"At the very least the Bible is a history book" A book FROM history, yes. A history book - no.
@JamesRideout123 "All he is saying is that you should follow his law"
He literally states that "not one iota of the old laws will change untill all has come to pass". The earth still exists, so 'all' has not come to pass. So the old laws most certainly still apply.
And if you are going to argue that the OT doesn't apply anymore, then that would mean that the 10 commandments don't apply either. Since that is OT law.
@JamesRideout123 And before you say "Old Testament yadayadayada" look up Matt 5:18 and 19, Luke 16:17 and Mark 7:9 - 13 amongst others. I think there is a truth, we might not find it, we might not find it with science but you sure as hell (sure as ..hell, haha I love playing with words:) ) wont find it in the bible, we moved beyond it, and that's good.
@Einsteinian99 "sabin is correct. The whole ID thing (Dover case) was debunked. The evidence was found because of sloppy editing. "
sabin97 has no idea what he is talking about. I reiterate the ATHEISTS Raelians believe alien life forms created the cell & species based on teleological evidence.
@toobsucker "I reiterate the ATHEISTS Raelians believe alien life forms created the cell & species based on teleological evidence."
Come on now... we all know that these handfull of dumbasses really aren't the driving forces between ID evangelists in the US. We all know that idiots like the discovery institute etc are a bunch of bigot christians.
Scientists sometimes dont want to debate creationists because they feel that by debating them gives validity to batshit ideas! Most of the debates Ive seen are painful to watch. Reltards reject all evidence and offer magic. It's like trying to convince a 6 year old there is no santa clause. Some people just have a need to believe.
Refusing to debate intelligent design (under the pretense its creationism) is the best move they can make, every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Science just quickly modifies the theory before anyone notices it has been falsified.
And now the functional conserved (unable to evolve) elements have thoroughly falsified an already the dead theory. Atheistic evolution requires 100% of the system to be subject to change. Most of the genome can not be changed
@PTurchan1 "What is your best example of a "prediction Darwinian evolution [that] has been repeatedly falsified". Thanks'
Darwinian evolution predicts "the few or the one" evolving into the many, with fossils resembling an upside down pyramid, when in fact its just the opposite. Gould called Cambrian "the reverse cone of diversity",there is greater genetic variability in Cambrian than afterwards
The phylogenetic tress do not match at all. Many reference available if you want them
@toobsucker "there is greater genetic variability in Cambrian than afterwards" It's called massive extinction. That tends to happen when big meteors strike the earth or supervolcano's go off. It happened at least 5 times in earth's history. In one such event, as much a 95% of life on this planet was whiped out.
PS: using Gould quotes to argue against evolution is probably one of the dumbest things one can do.
refusing to debate creationism(disguised as "intelligent design", as proven by the dover case) is the best they can do. creationism is not science, it's religion. they are scientists, not religious leaders so they have no business debating religion.
i would suggest you read carefully what evolution says. it doesnt endorse or reject any god or gods, it merely states that life is continually changing, and describes how it changes.
@sabin97 "refusing to debate creationism(disguised as "intelligent design", as proven by the dover case)"
Your assertion that creationism and I.D. are synonymous is testable. If this is true this must mean everyone that believes the cell & species were designed by an intelligence must also believe the God of the bible is the designer, flat out not true, you have atheists that believe in I.D. via aliens
And I suggest to study methodological naturalism, the foundation of evolution
the official definitions are the same, except one says "by a creator" and another says "by an intelligent agency".
didnt you watch the dover trial? :|
i suggest you read about evolution. it isnt based on naturalism, it's based on scientific observation, and by definition science neither affirms nor denies any god or gods.
please read about evolution(not from creationist websites but from scientific sources) so you can get informed on what it actually says.
@sabin97 "the official definitions are the same, except one says "by a creator" and another says "by an intelligent agency" didnt you watch dover trial?"
You mean did I watch one mans opinion (the judge) determine a definition, yes I did, and you did not address the fact that there are many I.D. proponents that do not believe in the bible or God. Reality refutes your definition. Creationism is the biblical only version of I.D.
Would you like scores of quotes on evolution & naturalism
it wasnt the judge who said that, it was the creationists themselves, they tried to hide it, but the drafts(from the publishers) showed the exact same definitions(except "creator" vs "intelligent agency") brought forth by the proponents of "intelligent design"
again, i suggest you read about evolution, it's amazing what you'll find.
quote mining isnt really helpful, unless you wanna make motivational posters and such
@sabin97 "it wasnt the judge who said that, it was the creationists themselves"
Show me the transcript in which the creationists at the trial said said the intelligent design hypothesis equates GODDIDIT, I would love to see it.
Your not understanding what I'M telling you. Creationism is the word that describes the biblical version of I.D., Everyone else that believes in I.D. but does not believe in the bible are not creationist. You need to understand this first
@toobsucker "Show me the transcript in which the creationists at the trial said said the intelligent design hypothesis equates GODDIDIT"
Cdesign proponentsists.
They took their books and find/replaced all the "creation" words by "intelligent design" words. The 'Cdesign proponentsists' was a word encountered in one of these books where the find/replace function went wrong.
@sabin97 "again, i suggest you read about evolution, it's amazing what you'll find."
I suggest you study the problems in the theory, its amazing what you will find. Start by reading the quotes from evolutionary science on my youtube page. The theory is logically impossible and evolutionary science knows it.
The reason why the genome "appears as if designed" is because it was. The evolution you observe is an adaptation mechanisms with many slight variations already on file. Study
and i sincerely recommend(even more strongly than before) that you read what the theory of evolution says
and after that you should probably read all the practical applications of evolutionary theory,
it's amazing what you'll find
"The reason why the genome "appears as if designed" is because it was." do you have any sort of evidence for this? and this "design", does it have any sort of practical application?
That's a catch phrase evolutionists use to avoid dealing with the information in the quotes.
Try to follow what I'M saying here. Most proteins (thus sequences that code for them) are highly conserved, meaning they do change. Your theory starts with chemical reaction and no proteins, and must produce highly specific conserved proteins. This seems to be flying right over your head
Technology will be developed from understanding the cells
@ScientificBob "They took their books and find/replaced all the "creation" words by "intelligent design" words"
Your in need of remedial study. Creationism identifies the designer (God of the bible), The hypothesis of I.D. does not identify the designer. I,D, only claims an intelligence created the cell and species that's all.
Evolutionists MUST equate I.D. with super natural religious hocus pocus or there is no valid argument against it
@toobsucker "The hypothesis of I.D. does not identify the designer." But we all know what they mean by 'designer'. Denying this just makes you look like a very naive fool. Again, can you point out any 'face' of the ID crowd (discovery institute, AIG, etc) that is not a christian?
And did you bother to look up 'cdesign proponentsists'? Or is it to devastating to your case to face those facts?
@toobsucker "The hypothesis of I.D." Also, stop calling it a hypothesis... it's not a hypothesis, but a religious idea. It doesn't make predictions, it's not testable, it's not usefull, it's not verifiable and it's even impossible to say to which scientific field it belongs.
It's NOT a hypothesis. It's just pseudo-scientific bullshit. It's recycled creationism. Everybody knows it. You do to, I'm sure.
@toobsucker "MUST equate I.D. with super natural religious hocus pocus "
Sorry dude, but the supernatural hocus pocus IS an integral part of the silly idea. Because if it were NATURAL, then there should be a NATURAL explanation for the designer. But NATURAL explanations for origins is EXACTLY what the ID bigots are opposing. So, by definition, ID necessarily includes supernatural mumbo-jumbo
Tell me "scientific" Bob, what do you think would happen if the theory of evolution started at the single cell level?
It would fall right on its face and you know it, this is why experiments to "evolve" the single celled organism into a multi celled organism are never conducted. The single cell will never be anything other than the single cell,
Why do you think the fossil record quotes state nothing but STASIS? , because the genome is highly conserved
@toobsucker "what do you think would happen if the theory of evolution started at the single cell level" It starts with the first organic molecule capable of replications - which is way before the cell evolved.
"this is why experiments to "evolve" the single celled organism into a multi celled organism are never conducted" It's funny because just last week, I read an article in nature called 'Yeast suggests speedy start for multicellular life'
@ScientificBob "Experiments suggest otherwise, as detailed in Nature last week"
"Why do you think the fossil record quotes state nothing but STASIS" It doesn't.
"because the genome is highly conserved " It isn't.
Your responses are non responses. Just stating "your wrong" without the experimental evidence is meaningless. I can send you the pages of information supporting my claims to your inbox if you want it.
@ScientificBob "Come on now... we all know that these handfull of dumbasses really aren't the driving forces between ID evangelists in the US."
Did I ever say they were the driving forces?. Read what I wrote. Because creationists (Jews, Christians & Muslims) make up over 80% of I.D.proponents, they must make up the vast majority. This fact does not negate the definitions.
I.D. does not equate creationism, this is the point.
@toobsucker "Did I ever say they were the driving forces" No. But you were implying that it wasn't a movement rooted in religious creationism, while it clearly is.
"creationists make up over 80% of I.D.proponents" 94% of statistics on internet discussions are made up on the spot. Just saying.
"I.D. does not equate creationism, this is the point" CDESIGN PROPONENTSISTS
@toobsucker I also think it's funny that you removed your latest post. It was in my mailbox, but can't find it here. You said: "How does a theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, produce functional elements that can not evolve?"
To which I feel the need to reply that evolution does NOT AT ALL in ANY WAY OR FORM "predict" that the "entire system" must evolve. This is retarted and a huge strawman.
@ScientificBob "I also think it's funny that you removed your latest post"
Wrong again. I removed and re-posted literally minutes later because of a typo. Look again
"evolution does NOT AT ALL in ANY WAY OR FORM "predict" that the "entire system" must evolve"
Of course it does. Do you think ribosomes and over 300 other molecular machines were created in the BB?. Even starting the theory with the single cell, there are billions of highly conserved proteins that must be created
@toobsucker "Of course it does. Do you think ribosomes and over 300 other molecular machines were created "
The silly argument of irreducible complexity has been discarded I don't know how many times. You can keep recycling it all you want, it won't suddenly become a valid argument.
Also, you're changing the topic from evolution to abiogenesis. Scope, please.
@ScientificBob "Can you point to one? And not to one that merely buys into it, but one that is "researching" it (LOL! had to laugh at that word 'research')"
The LOL part of this is, the cell WILL IN FACT be intelligently designed before chemical reactions & physics create a cell. Craig Venter said in Feb 2011 science will soon intelligently design a cell,
And the fact that science practices I. D. every day. I.D. is simply using intelligent foresight to arrange sequences
Darwinian evolution has already been falsified and most evolutionists are to steeped in their blind dogma to realize it.
The conserved elements falsify the theory. Most proteins, thus DNA sequences that code for them are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms, the sequences that code for the ribosomes for example, can not be changed
How does a theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, produce functional elements that can not evolve?
« Darwinian evolution has already been falsified »
Well, yes. And replaced with more modern variants, up to the "modern synthesis", which *is* (at least in its central hypotheses) consistent with the data.
The very fact of evolution is what conserves them. They are subject to natural selection more than other genes because more of the cell has grown to depend on these proteins.
« produce functional elements that can not evolve? »
Even if it were true that they do not evolve at all (and it's not), then this could still be explained in evolutionary terms. After all, if key parts of the cellular mechanism had grown to depend on certain proteins, it would be expected that even slight variations in that gene would not pass natural selection.
the obese lady at the end makes no sense in arguing that Genesis is a fairytale becoz the guy is not even asking for genesis to be taught at school. That's why we need faith to believe in bible...but when we need the same faith to believe in scientific fairytales such as evolution then that is the problem
It is impossible to counter all the false assertions that creationists spew out in the time frame that a debate format allows. Why would a genuine scientist want to debate such an obvious fraudster as Kent Hovind anyway?
It kind of undermines his entire persona. Since he's so full of it with his 'christian' bullocks. Being a tax fraud and convicted liar kinda puts his own honesty into question. Does he really believe all that he spews? Because his actions really aren't in line with his beliefs nor with what he says his beliefs are.
But idd, his criminal private life is irrelavent to the points he make (but it doesn't help).
True! Why would a scientist or professor who earned their degrees thru hard work want to debate a high school graduate with phony paper mill diplomas received thru correspondence like Hovind.
Why lower themselves to debate a known grifter & conman currently incarcerated for stealing?
Those that believe the man descended from the incest of Adam & Eve's children later the incest of Noah's children will continue to do because of a deep fear of an invisible god that can only be seen by dead people.
@OptimalElement Because the so called "Educated People" throw a wall in front of them and refuse to allow any thought to get through it. Mr. Hovind explained very clearly in this video about the lies in the textbooks and that they should be removed and not once did he ever say that Creationism should be taught in the schools at least in the taxpayer sense. He is saying that the lies are in the textbooks should be taken out that is all. Did you hear the audience respond and say keep lies in text?
It is Hovind that posts lies and misrepresentation, uses straw arguments and logical fallacies and quote mining. I've seen his seminars, the amount of bullshit I heard was unbelievable. He knows absolutely nothing of genetics, physics or any part of science. He thinks comets caused the ice poles! (just to name one example). And you speaking of no thought coming true... the audience he address have no understanding of science.
@OptimalElement The man who got up the, the Darwinist in the white shirt didn't help get his point of view across by getting all out of gear yelling at Mr. Hovind and then sitting downs slash refusing to address Mr. Hovind. If he really wanted to destroy Hovind he should of asked each question individually instead of giving him loaded questions slash 4 questions at once. Mr Hovind could not answer all the questions at once but he could individually.
I've heard hovind speaking with real scientists. Hovind always avoided answering the questions given to him. Look, lets put evolution debate aside for a moment. I know from what I hear in his seminars hovind has very little understanding of science in general. His ''PhD'' is from uncredited christian school. His 15 years of teaching is actually him home schooling his kids. He never done research, he never published scientific papers. He is a hoax and now he is in jail over tax.
@OptimalElement You are not telling me exactly why Mr.Hovind is a bad educator etc based on his merit or what he is actually doing you are instead referring to his degree etc when Darwin himself had very little education.
I did tell you why. I can't put it all in one comment. Just give you individual examples. Just to name a few: He thinks comets caused the ice poles by smashing into earth. He thinks there was huge ice sheet in space around earth. He thinks one chromosome contains all information needed to build a human being. He thinks sun rays cause aging and clouds can stop x-rays. Any person with a science degree will know this is bullshit. You know why?
@OptimalElement The Sun does contribute to aging. How do you know there was not a huge ice sheet around Earth? We never lived in that era. We do know that two teaspoons of DNA could reach the moon and back about 30x. I have a hard time believing that all of that information happened by chance over millions of years. Clouds will stop Sun rays. They won't stop all of them but they wills top many of them depending on the thickness of cloud cover.
There was no a huge ice sheet because in terms of physic, thermodynamics and chemically it is IMPOSSIBLE. In space exposed to the sun temperature is over a hundred degrees. How long you think ice sheet will survive? Let alone any evidence for it. Hovind himself said he doesn't know how it was, he just made it up. DNA and information did not happen by chance. Evolution DID NOT happen by chance. You need few centimeters of lead to stop x-rays, let alone some water vapor.
damn it. im starting to think that im a freakin genius. how can be a student be this dumb?? like they are repeating same bullcrap over and over again without understanding of what they have just said. thats sad... America i hope the next generatino will not be this dumb :/
donfanto1 1 day ago
Yes, we admit it. No one wants to debate this Idiot. He has been show the evidence that proves him wrong.
gregrutz 2 days ago
Creationists should be laughed at and sent to the corner to wear the dunce cap.
sybite 2 days ago
everyone that argued with him was an idiotic clone of one another
bellhairrat1 4 days ago
@bellhairrat1 how comes that all the evolutionists are these so called clones? like every professor is an idiot except u right??? :D
donfanto1 1 day ago
@donfanto1 get it right moron i said everyone that argued with him I DID'NT SEE ANY PROFESSORS AND EVEN SO NO ONE CAN PROVE EVOLUTION IS RIGHT SO WHATS UR POINT? THEY ARE IDIOTS!! THE MAN IS TRYING TO HELP THEM AND ALL THEY CAN DO INSTEAD OF LISTEN AND SAY FROM THE HEART FAIR ENOUGH IS ARGUE WITH A GUY THAT IS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND IF U NOTICED HE PUT THEM IN THEIR PLACE AND UNDERSTAND IM NOT STICKING UP FOR HOVIND IM SAYING IT LIKE IT IS OR ARE U SEEING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM ME??
bellhairrat1 18 hours ago
@bellhairrat1 well sorry i misundertood what uve said. and btw in the end they named the number of the proffesors in the university that refesed to debate him
donfanto1 13 hours ago
0:57:30 showboating
TGBAgentOrange 5 days ago
The stupidity hurts.
astroboomboy 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon I agree with the article you posted :
The Martin Gaskell Case: Not an Isolated Incident
However you need to understand that idiots and con men like Kent Hovind give the real scientists like Martin Gaskell and Martin Nowak a bad name.
Titus 1 : 11
"They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain."
redddbaron 6 days ago
The women with the doctorate should know that genes are not as homologues as once thought in cross species comparisons in terms of similar function for similar gene, and that in fact the gene centered view is now being challenged by an overwhelming body of recent post ENCODE data, and is especially being challenged by the same evo devo biology she claims is the backbone of evolutionary development. See Stuart Newman and the Altenberg 16 summit and Epigenetics.
benthemiester 1 week ago
Kent Hovind had to school these young whippersnappers lol
Buggz21 1 week ago
@Buggz21
Hovind rarely schools anyone. He showboats.
PTurchan1 1 week ago
Everything can't come from nothing. God did it all. End of story.
lilrowe21 1 week ago
I realize this is very important to all of the fundamentalists out there, but these guys have real science to do.
If you are a construction worker, you can't spend the whole time telling Bobby that the bulldozer is not the thing that mixes the cement.
someonenobodycares 1 week ago
Are you also building a list of all geographers who refuse to take the stage to debate with a flath earth proponent?
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@ScientificBob The differences is evolution is the biggest delusion of them all. If you had an open mind and learned just how bad the theory is you'd be a creationist too. Every SINGLE point of evolution, minus micro which is actually supported, has been disproven. That is a fact whether you believe it or not. Get educated not indoctrinated!
randont 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randont
« learned just how bad the theory is »
Do you even know what it is the theory claims?
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randont
« Every SINGLE point of evolution [...] has been disproven »
Ehr, on the contrary: all available observational data in biology and palaeontology supports the central hypotheses of evolutionary theory. No data known currently contradicts these central hypotheses.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randont "Every SINGLE point of evolution has been disproven" Can you name one aspect of the theory that has been disproven? And explain how it disproves evolution theory.
"Get educated not indoctrinated" Says the guy thinks the bible is the answer to everything.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is why they won't debate him - Here is a picture of "Dr" Hovind's "University" Replace * with a . imgur*com/BbsO2
soulsmile72 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
soulsmile72 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
soulsmile72 2 weeks ago
817 comments but only 15k views, I don't think that is right.
JamesRideout123 2 weeks ago
Mutations are bad. ok
marigolds44 2 weeks ago
They have 4 ''lucy's'' with knees and feet. Hovind is a mine quoter and a fraudster.
''You can't prove it had any kids'' SPECIES evolve not individuals.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
WOW Christians would do much better without Kent Hovind. I thought they had a chance until I seen this video.
archdtaylor 2 weeks ago
Kent quote mines a paper showing why Carbon 14 does not work on snails. Thanks for showing us it does not work on snails but we know that.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
Good grief. That man just makes me want to puke sometimes.
rpmdude 2 weeks ago
Read a History book. ''By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.''
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
charging straight in with no morals if evolution is true eh?? thats where i stop watching.
God damn i hate the stubborn stupidity of that man
haz020190 3 weeks ago
It does not do any good to debate brainwased people. Kent won't look at the evidence. ''Fossils just mean something died.'' No Kent, it means something lived in the past.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
Kent Hovind won the Golden Crocoduck for BREECHING THE 9TH COMMANDMENT!!! Liar Liar Bums on fire!!!!!
scarletharlot69 3 weeks ago
as i am watching this and realizing how terrible the logic of some of the students in questioning Kent Hovind and they are really missing the point of what is being said. That said I am disappointed that Kent Hovind couldn't answer the Big Daddy question about list of experts. If Kent Hovind makes a claim, he should be able to back it up, but this is no way comes close to nullifying his message. It was a minor detail that he screwed up but Kent totally blasted text books and people shuld note
Stan6468 3 weeks ago
@Stan6468 Kent thinks the eath is 6000 years old ! It is millions of years old, geologist found that out 200 years ago. The universe 13 billion years old. Tree rings and civilizations go back 10,000 years.
Kent is wrong. Search kent hovind debunked and you computer will overload and crash.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
@gregrutz There is a time in a person life where one must decide to deal with facts or fiction and I am a person that only deals with facts. I am not a great fan of Kent Hovind but i admit, he is alot more honest than most. Let's deal with facts. You said they have proven 200 yrs ago the Earth is 13 Billions of yrs old. There is no dating method to date that is accurate. Carbon dating is only good for few thousands of years and even liberal old age Scienctists admit that now.
Stan6468 2 weeks ago
@Stan6468 Kent Hovind is one of the worst liars on YouTube. Geologists 200 years ago started looking at the history recorded in the rock and discovered the earth was millions of years old. Way before radiometric dating was invented.
So nuclear chemists told them it is 4,545 million years old + or - 2 million years. Assuming the earth is the same age as the solar system.
Astronomers say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Let's keep our facts straight.
Tree rings go back 10,000 years.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Really? Just what scientific method did these "geologists" 200 years ago use to determine that age? Tree rings? LOL Tree rings do not measure years....tree rings measure growth spurts...basically when water and nutrients were plentiful....there can be more than 3 rings per year...tree rings are completely unreliable as age indicators. The rest of your post is just as silly. BTW, I just laughed when you used the word "assuming"....yep...that is your whole argument....LOL
KJVWordofGod 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KJVWordofGod "Just what scientific method did these "geologists" 200 years ago use to determine that age" How about erosion? Things like the grand canyon don't really form overnight. How about deposit layers? Those things also take a lot of time to form. From these two things alone, one can conclude that it's pretty much impossible for the earth to be younger then several million years.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@gregrutz "Assuming the earth is the same age as the solar system"
There isn't even a solar system because the sun goes round the Earth. Actually, it's not possible to scientifically "prove" that the Earth goes round the Sun or that the Sun goes round the Earth. And what I've just said is not BS. Check it out for yourself.
copperload 2 weeks ago
@copperload The sun can't go around the earth because according to the bible the earth is flat !
BTW, the sun in the center was proven a long time ago. If you can't figure that out you are hopeless.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz
The Bible doesn't say the earth is flat. It does say all things were made in six days and also that the sun moves and the earth doesn't.
I have no hope for you if you refuse to accept that it has never been "proved" that the earth travels round the sun. It hasn't.
copperload 2 weeks ago
@copperload Isaiah 40 : 22-24
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”
I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2D. FLAT.
Do you think the stars all go around the earth too? Do you know how fast a star a million miles away would have to go to travel around the earth?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz There is reason for using circle instead of sphere (which translators could have legitimately used) and that is that no-one can sit above a sphere, it being 3D. If you were above a part of the sphere you wouldn't be above most of the rest of it. God is above everything, can view all things at the same time, nothing being hidden from him.
Also, He doesn't hide Himself from us if we seek Him. The ancients didn't believe in a flat earth, the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth!
copperload 2 weeks ago
@copperload Yes, no one can sit above a sphere, Thanks for pointing out the bible is wrong again. It is wrong about a global flood too.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@copperload In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to observe that Venus showed all phases, just like the Moon. He thought that while this observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system, it was a natural consequence of the heliocentric system.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@copperload
When I look down at a basketball I don't remark, "now its a circle from here!" You would think the creator of the universe would be more straight forward and just say "I put a spherical earth in a solar system orbiting bigger object, I call this gravity." instead of some bullshit like, "And He who so looks from ye heaven to a circle in the sky" or some cryptic babble. And if God is 'above' everything from which angle does he view the earth?? there is no up or down space dumbass.
superwowie111 2 weeks ago
@superwowie111 Evolution is a lie that is not founded on science, but inferences, lies and inferences. I don't know your position but you speak like an evolutionist. Not sensible
marigolds44 2 weeks ago
@marigolds44
Don't talk to me.
superwowie111 2 weeks ago
@copperload You seriously are questioning whether the earth revolves around the sun or not? Damn..... I rest my case against religious ignorance. You proved it to me that religion makes people stupid, not uninformed, but stupid. Like the other dude said; are you willing to think the stars travel around the earth (at SUPER speeds since they are so far away) since the earth doesnt move? OMG, I am stunned by this, im going to share it. wow..
seanturpin01 2 weeks ago
@seanturpin01
Well, what about God coming to Earth from Heaven, dying and being raised to life again, breaking the curse on creation brought about by man's sin so that you can live forever?
You probably don't believe that either. By the way, What is a SUPER speed? What is "your" maximum speed for a celestial body to travel in space? I am stunned by your lack of imagination, that you can't accept that what I am saying "might" be true. There is "proof" neither for geocentrism nor heliocentrism.
copperload 2 weeks ago
@copperload We know how gravity works, we have pictures of the sun in the center of the solar system.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz "Now as an undergraduate at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, I'd taken enough relativity theory to know that neither heliocentrism nor geocentricity could be proven or disproven" This was written by one scientist; a scientist; a proper scientist. Was he right or wrong?
Don't answer straight away but seek an honest opinion from other sources and see if it is in fact "provable" that either heliocentrism or geocentrism is correct.
copperload 2 weeks ago
@copperload ''heliocentrism or geocentrism is correct''
One says the earth is the center of the universe.
One says the sun is the center of the universe.
The Big Bang theory says THERE IS NO CENTER TO THE UNIVERSE.
You figure it out smartass.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@copperload "This was written by one scientist; a scientist; a proper scientist. Was he right or wrong?" Wrong if he means that both ideas are equally valid. Right if he means that everything in science is tentative.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@copperload I dont even want to debate someone who doesnt believe that the earth revolves around the sun. I got better things in my life than worrying about you but yesterday I was just amazed, today I dont care.
seanturpin01 2 weeks ago
@seanturpin01 I'm glad; the last I would want is for you to worry, but if you are serious in your search for the truth which is what science purports to be about, ask around and you will see that it just isn't possible to prove either view. I realise this is news to most but it demonstrates that science for a very long time has been forced to adopt a "way" of thinking, that way being contrary to the ideas contained in the Bible.
copperload 2 weeks ago
@copperload "Well, what about God coming to Earth from Heaven, dying and being raised to life again, breaking the curse on creation brought about by man's sin so that you can live forever"
Yeah... gonna have to call 'bullocks' on that one. Not only does it seem completely pointless (an actual all-powerfull god wouldn't require a blood sacrifice to forgive folks from a crime that was committed by ancestors many many MANY generations ago), it's also retarded.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@copperload "There is "proof" neither for geocentrism nor heliocentrism."
Yet, both are falsifiable. And while it's easy to falsify geocentrism, it seems pretty much impossible to falsify heliocentrism. The orbit of ALL the celestial bodies in the solar system can be VERY ACCURATLY predicted. Not only that, we USE the gravitational pull of these bodies to travel accross the system. To be able to do that, you NEED to know exactly where which body is going to be at which time.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@copperload "your lack of imagination, that you can't accept that what I am saying "might" be true"
My imagination (or lack thereof) is irrelavent to the truth of your claims. If you are correct, then you should be able to DEMONSTRATE it. My imagination (or lack thereof) is irrelavent.
Although I will point out that the fact that you think it IS relevant, hurts your credibility. A lot.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@copperload Sorry if it sounds rude, but seriously this is like finding a diamond in the ruff hearing somenoe say that it hasnt been proven that the earth revolves around the sun. Anti-heliocentric people DO exist! WOW
seanturpin01 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Part 2 The next fact The other dating method is potassium Argon of which is supposed to the best i quess. This they have tested by using rocks from the Lava flows on Mt St Helens and even today there are only 30 some yrs old but that dating method showed millions of yrs old, way off the mark for known dates. This is documented. There are many Scientists who study Silt that flow into Oceans from rivers all over the world and they have found small build ups. Part 3 next
Stan6468 2 weeks ago
@Stan6468 "The other dating method is potassium Argon of which is supposed to [be] the best i quess. This they have tested by using rocks from the Lava flows on Mt St Helens ..."
You deal only in facts? OK.
Google the following and read the article it finds: 'Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite' by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. You'll find a properly reasoned argument demonstrating why K-Ar dating has NOT been shown to be unreliable.
Hope your geology is up to it.
sirderam1 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Part 3 The build up of Silt should be enormous but they are small and the build up correlates to 6,000 to 10,000 yrs old, this is a huge promblem for old age Earth. There is more as the Mitochondrial DNA or the study of population growth and the Niagra falls and Dead Sea and Carbon 14 in the Atomsphere and the more, all point to evidence that the Earth is young--not old. Be a student and study all the Evidence and you will see that there is more to this. Thank You
Stan6468 2 weeks ago
@Stan6468 You would thing that the most silt, mud and sediments would be in the middle of the oceans, right?
So in the 1950s scientists went looking and what they found was that the more toward the middle of the Atlantic ocean the LESS sediments there were and the younger the was. When they mapped the magnetic fields and dated the magnetic flip flops of the poles it was clear that the ocean floor is spreading, they had confirmed plate tectonics. The can also calculate how many million years.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
Kent Hovind would destroy Hitchens due to the logical agrument of Creationism, It would not matter if it was Hovind or any other Creationist because to look at the evidence only points to the fact of Creationism. Kent Hovind is right in saying the men of Evolution are liars, and they get caught but people do not listen and have closed minds. If people would think critically and logically then people would listen more but that will never happen.
Stan6468 3 weeks ago
there's no point debating someone like Kent Hovind, it's like talking to a wall.
Nidhogg05 3 weeks ago
Um, Kent Hovind is not a scientist. His crack pot theories have been debunked point, by point, by point. Whenever he gets stomped in a debate he simply says "Well, the Bible is the infallable word of God and that trumps science and proof". The guy is a fraud.
TheThunderduck 3 weeks ago
Lincoln on Slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery." --- March 14, 1861
"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
"I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." --- September 15, 1858
IconsOfTeleplay 3 weeks ago
He will attack one or two words of a response as a rebuttal without rebutting against the point of the statement- then when the other person comes back he directs the conversation to another pont. It is almost impossible to get him to stay on one topic for more than one or two sentences. If scientists tried to debate each other like this they would never get anywhere. He is very skilled at what he does - I woulder if he ever debated Hitchens - that would have been something to see.
damrak1969 4 weeks ago
You have to give it to Hovind - he is very smart and can think very quickly and is a master of twisting words, pulling tangents into argument, insisting things are different from reality, making crazy analogies and the use of effective debating tactics. He continually frustrates the professors because he only acts like he is debating their facts when he is really just talking around them. He is really impressive to watch. I wonder who he is debating in prison?
damrak1969 4 weeks ago
@damrak1969 What words does he twist? All he said is that the lies should be taken out of the textbooks. Darwinists can't debate what he says so instead they attack his character like "oh well he's in jail hahaha" or he is a "tax fraud" etc.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 "What words does he twist" Every word that he uses in the context of some scientific strawmen. Wich is pretty much everything he has to say about science.
"All he said is that the lies should be taken out of the textbooks." No, no. He also asks to put HIS lies in.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
Religion is not science. When Hovind submits a peer reviewed study, or even a few, he will have some credibility. But he simply twists other people's data to fit his narrative. Would you trust somebody who hasn't done their own research and merely copies others while putting their own spin on it? There is a reason Hovind is not a scientist and is simply a theologian. He might know the Bible, but he refuses to follow the scientific method
fenix9885 4 weeks ago
Kent Hovind has proven time and time again that he is not a coward nor is he hiding anything.
The Darwinists cannot say the same. In one argument I saw 3 Professors go against Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind doesn't need his "buddies" to prove a point.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 It's not about being wrong and "brave", it's about being right...
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@MrSilentDoubleA Then you shouldn't need 2 of your buddies for assistance. The truth will always be the truth no matter what.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 So do you approve of rape? As long as you pay the victims father 50 silver pieces, or, if the rape happened inside a city, both the victim and rapist is stoned to death. Do you believe in slavery, as long as they're kept a certain way? Do you think it's ok to kill people who work on the sabbath, that says "Oh my god", believe something else than you, cheats on a spouse, that kills (haha), that steals, that takes pictures or paints?
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@MrSilentDoubleA You are quote mining the old testament which Roman Catholics don't practice.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 Read my second comment, Jesus himself said that you should follow the old testament. (Yes, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, like Mohammed existed. They both, were trying to implement new morals into a society that was quite different from todays)
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@MrSilentDoubleA No he isn't. All he is saying is that you should follow his law. It doesn't say you should follow Old testament law.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
The commandments are in the OT.
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@MrSilentDoubleA I don't follow Old testament Law. The New Testament laws are good laws. In fact the law of the world we live in mostly in North America is inspired by the teachings of the New Testament a well as the Commandments. At the very least the Bible is a history book. I don't think everything needs to be taken literally I just find it funny that people who argue it always take the worst out of it and none of the good. This is also assuming Jesus himself even said that.
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 The bible itself says you can't intepret, question it, or any religious authority. What's funny is, what has made humanity move forward is the questioning of authority. The American and French revolution, democracy, Gallilei, Darwin (just had to), the first universities etcetc.
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 "In fact the law of the world we live in mostly in North America is inspired by the teachings of the New Testament " Do you understand what a 'secular society' is? The NT the base of american law, omg...
"At the very least the Bible is a history book" A book FROM history, yes. A history book - no.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@JamesRideout123 "I just find it funny that people who argue it always take the worst out of it and none of the good"
I just find it funny that people who defend it always take out the good and none of the bad.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@JamesRideout123 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."
“...the scripture cannot be broken.”
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law"
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 "All he is saying is that you should follow his law"
He literally states that "not one iota of the old laws will change untill all has come to pass". The earth still exists, so 'all' has not come to pass. So the old laws most certainly still apply.
And if you are going to argue that the OT doesn't apply anymore, then that would mean that the 10 commandments don't apply either. Since that is OT law.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@MrSilentDoubleA All Matthew 7:9 says is that you should wash your hands before eating? Is this wrong?
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSilentDoubleA All Matthew 7:9 says is that you should wash your hands before eating? Is this wrong?
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSilentDoubleA All Matthew 7:9 says is that you should wash your hands before eating. How is that wrong?
JamesRideout123 4 weeks ago
@JamesRideout123 And before you say "Old Testament yadayadayada" look up Matt 5:18 and 19, Luke 16:17 and Mark 7:9 - 13 amongst others. I think there is a truth, we might not find it, we might not find it with science but you sure as hell (sure as ..hell, haha I love playing with words:) ) wont find it in the bible, we moved beyond it, and that's good.
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
@toob, sabin is correct. The whole ID thing (Dover case) was debunked. The evidence was found because of sloppy editing.
Einsteinian99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Einsteinian99 "sabin is correct. The whole ID thing (Dover case) was debunked. The evidence was found because of sloppy editing. "
sabin97 has no idea what he is talking about. I reiterate the ATHEISTS Raelians believe alien life forms created the cell & species based on teleological evidence.
The facts refute your definition
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker "I reiterate the ATHEISTS Raelians believe alien life forms created the cell & species based on teleological evidence."
Come on now... we all know that these handfull of dumbasses really aren't the driving forces between ID evangelists in the US. We all know that idiots like the discovery institute etc are a bunch of bigot christians.
Isn't that correct, 'cdesign proponentsists'?
ScientificBob 1 week ago
Scientists sometimes dont want to debate creationists because they feel that by debating them gives validity to batshit ideas! Most of the debates Ive seen are painful to watch. Reltards reject all evidence and offer magic. It's like trying to convince a 6 year old there is no santa clause. Some people just have a need to believe.
Einsteinian99 1 month ago
This is awesome! Fave! :D
JesseQuintana 1 month ago
Please if I ever have to get advice on anything from anyone who went to Berkeley ,I would run for the hills.
MyBali2011 1 month ago
Refusing to debate intelligent design (under the pretense its creationism) is the best move they can make, every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Science just quickly modifies the theory before anyone notices it has been falsified.
And now the functional conserved (unable to evolve) elements have thoroughly falsified an already the dead theory. Atheistic evolution requires 100% of the system to be subject to change. Most of the genome can not be changed
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker
What is your best example of a "prediction Darwinian evolution [that] has been repeatedly falsified". Thanks.
PTurchan1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PTurchan1 "What is your best example of a "prediction Darwinian evolution [that] has been repeatedly falsified". Thanks'
Darwinian evolution predicts "the few or the one" evolving into the many, with fossils resembling an upside down pyramid, when in fact its just the opposite. Gould called Cambrian "the reverse cone of diversity",there is greater genetic variability in Cambrian than afterwards
The phylogenetic tress do not match at all. Many reference available if you want them
toobsucker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "there is greater genetic variability in Cambrian than afterwards" It's called massive extinction. That tends to happen when big meteors strike the earth or supervolcano's go off. It happened at least 5 times in earth's history. In one such event, as much a 95% of life on this planet was whiped out.
PS: using Gould quotes to argue against evolution is probably one of the dumbest things one can do.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@toobsucker AMEN!
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@toobsucker
you are partially correct.
refusing to debate creationism(disguised as "intelligent design", as proven by the dover case) is the best they can do. creationism is not science, it's religion. they are scientists, not religious leaders so they have no business debating religion.
i would suggest you read carefully what evolution says. it doesnt endorse or reject any god or gods, it merely states that life is continually changing, and describes how it changes.
sabin97 1 month ago
@sabin97 "refusing to debate creationism(disguised as "intelligent design", as proven by the dover case)"
Your assertion that creationism and I.D. are synonymous is testable. If this is true this must mean everyone that believes the cell & species were designed by an intelligence must also believe the God of the bible is the designer, flat out not true, you have atheists that believe in I.D. via aliens
And I suggest to study methodological naturalism, the foundation of evolution
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker
the official definitions are the same, except one says "by a creator" and another says "by an intelligent agency".
didnt you watch the dover trial? :|
i suggest you read about evolution. it isnt based on naturalism, it's based on scientific observation, and by definition science neither affirms nor denies any god or gods.
please read about evolution(not from creationist websites but from scientific sources) so you can get informed on what it actually says.
sabin97 1 month ago
@sabin97 "the official definitions are the same, except one says "by a creator" and another says "by an intelligent agency" didnt you watch dover trial?"
You mean did I watch one mans opinion (the judge) determine a definition, yes I did, and you did not address the fact that there are many I.D. proponents that do not believe in the bible or God. Reality refutes your definition. Creationism is the biblical only version of I.D.
Would you like scores of quotes on evolution & naturalism
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker
you definitely didnt watch the trial
it wasnt the judge who said that, it was the creationists themselves, they tried to hide it, but the drafts(from the publishers) showed the exact same definitions(except "creator" vs "intelligent agency") brought forth by the proponents of "intelligent design"
again, i suggest you read about evolution, it's amazing what you'll find.
quote mining isnt really helpful, unless you wanna make motivational posters and such
sabin97 1 month ago
@sabin97 "it wasnt the judge who said that, it was the creationists themselves"
Show me the transcript in which the creationists at the trial said said the intelligent design hypothesis equates GODDIDIT, I would love to see it.
Your not understanding what I'M telling you. Creationism is the word that describes the biblical version of I.D., Everyone else that believes in I.D. but does not believe in the bible are not creationist. You need to understand this first
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker "Show me the transcript in which the creationists at the trial said said the intelligent design hypothesis equates GODDIDIT"
Cdesign proponentsists.
They took their books and find/replaced all the "creation" words by "intelligent design" words. The 'Cdesign proponentsists' was a word encountered in one of these books where the find/replace function went wrong.
Google it.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 1 week ago
@sabin97 "again, i suggest you read about evolution, it's amazing what you'll find."
I suggest you study the problems in the theory, its amazing what you will find. Start by reading the quotes from evolutionary science on my youtube page. The theory is logically impossible and evolutionary science knows it.
The reason why the genome "appears as if designed" is because it was. The evolution you observe is an adaptation mechanisms with many slight variations already on file. Study
toobsucker 1 month ago
@toobsucker
still with the quote mining?
and i sincerely recommend(even more strongly than before) that you read what the theory of evolution says
and after that you should probably read all the practical applications of evolutionary theory,
it's amazing what you'll find
"The reason why the genome "appears as if designed" is because it was." do you have any sort of evidence for this? and this "design", does it have any sort of practical application?
sabin97 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sabin97 "still with the quote mining?"
That's a catch phrase evolutionists use to avoid dealing with the information in the quotes.
Try to follow what I'M saying here. Most proteins (thus sequences that code for them) are highly conserved, meaning they do change. Your theory starts with chemical reaction and no proteins, and must produce highly specific conserved proteins. This seems to be flying right over your head
Technology will be developed from understanding the cells
toobsucker 4 weeks ago
@toobsucker "Technology will be developed from understanding the cells"
Technology allready was developed from understanding evolution.
Please, tell me, what technology has been developed or is being developed from understanding ID?
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob "Please, tell me, what technology has been developed or is being developed from understanding ID?"
Only time will tell. Google "Three subsets of sequence complexity"
"No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms"
Bruce Alberts (head of the NAS till 2005) said biology must incorporate design engineering principles to get to the "next level: of understanding
The "mind boggling" complexity quotes are endless
toobsucker 1 week ago
@ScientificBob "They took their books and find/replaced all the "creation" words by "intelligent design" words"
Your in need of remedial study. Creationism identifies the designer (God of the bible), The hypothesis of I.D. does not identify the designer. I,D, only claims an intelligence created the cell and species that's all.
Evolutionists MUST equate I.D. with super natural religious hocus pocus or there is no valid argument against it
I.D. is a design hypothesis, thats all
toobsucker 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
« is a design hypothesis »
ID is the claim that "ID dunnit", vs the "goddunnit" of creationism.
I'd hardly call it a "hypothesis". It's still simply an assertion - still lacking any means to be tested.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "The hypothesis of I.D. does not identify the designer." But we all know what they mean by 'designer'. Denying this just makes you look like a very naive fool. Again, can you point out any 'face' of the ID crowd (discovery institute, AIG, etc) that is not a christian?
And did you bother to look up 'cdesign proponentsists'? Or is it to devastating to your case to face those facts?
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "The hypothesis of I.D." Also, stop calling it a hypothesis... it's not a hypothesis, but a religious idea. It doesn't make predictions, it's not testable, it's not usefull, it's not verifiable and it's even impossible to say to which scientific field it belongs.
It's NOT a hypothesis. It's just pseudo-scientific bullshit. It's recycled creationism. Everybody knows it. You do to, I'm sure.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@toobsucker "MUST equate I.D. with super natural religious hocus pocus "
Sorry dude, but the supernatural hocus pocus IS an integral part of the silly idea. Because if it were NATURAL, then there should be a NATURAL explanation for the designer. But NATURAL explanations for origins is EXACTLY what the ID bigots are opposing. So, by definition, ID necessarily includes supernatural mumbo-jumbo
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@ScientificBob
Tell me "scientific" Bob, what do you think would happen if the theory of evolution started at the single cell level?
It would fall right on its face and you know it, this is why experiments to "evolve" the single celled organism into a multi celled organism are never conducted. The single cell will never be anything other than the single cell,
Why do you think the fossil record quotes state nothing but STASIS? , because the genome is highly conserved
toobsucker 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "what do you think would happen if the theory of evolution started at the single cell level" It starts with the first organic molecule capable of replications - which is way before the cell evolved.
"this is why experiments to "evolve" the single celled organism into a multi celled organism are never conducted" It's funny because just last week, I read an article in nature called 'Yeast suggests speedy start for multicellular life'
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@toobsucker "The single cell will never be anything other than the single cell"
Experiments suggest otherwise, as detailed in Nature last week.
"Why do you think the fossil record quotes state nothing but STASIS" It doesn't.
"because the genome is highly conserved " It isn't.
Seriously, you shoul really inform yourself a little...
ScientificBob 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob "Experiments suggest otherwise, as detailed in Nature last week"
"Why do you think the fossil record quotes state nothing but STASIS" It doesn't.
"because the genome is highly conserved " It isn't.
Your responses are non responses. Just stating "your wrong" without the experimental evidence is meaningless. I can send you the pages of information supporting my claims to your inbox if you want it.
Start by posting the article in nature
toobsucker 1 week ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 1 week ago
@ScientificBob "Come on now... we all know that these handfull of dumbasses really aren't the driving forces between ID evangelists in the US."
Did I ever say they were the driving forces?. Read what I wrote. Because creationists (Jews, Christians & Muslims) make up over 80% of I.D.proponents, they must make up the vast majority. This fact does not negate the definitions.
I.D. does not equate creationism, this is the point.
toobsucker 1 week ago
@toobsucker "Did I ever say they were the driving forces" No. But you were implying that it wasn't a movement rooted in religious creationism, while it clearly is.
"creationists make up over 80% of I.D.proponents" 94% of statistics on internet discussions are made up on the spot. Just saying.
"I.D. does not equate creationism, this is the point" CDESIGN PROPONENTSISTS
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@toobsucker I also think it's funny that you removed your latest post. It was in my mailbox, but can't find it here. You said: "How does a theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, produce functional elements that can not evolve?"
To which I feel the need to reply that evolution does NOT AT ALL in ANY WAY OR FORM "predict" that the "entire system" must evolve. This is retarted and a huge strawman.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@ScientificBob "I also think it's funny that you removed your latest post"
Wrong again. I removed and re-posted literally minutes later because of a typo. Look again
"evolution does NOT AT ALL in ANY WAY OR FORM "predict" that the "entire system" must evolve"
Of course it does. Do you think ribosomes and over 300 other molecular machines were created in the BB?. Even starting the theory with the single cell, there are billions of highly conserved proteins that must be created
toobsucker 1 week ago
Comment removed
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@toobsucker "I removed and re-posted literally minutes later because of a typo. " I couldn't find it, perhaps it's youtube screwing up again.
"Of course it does" No, it doesn't. We can keep playing this game if you want, but it's pointless.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Of course it does. Do you think ribosomes and over 300 other molecular machines were created "
The silly argument of irreducible complexity has been discarded I don't know how many times. You can keep recycling it all you want, it won't suddenly become a valid argument.
Also, you're changing the topic from evolution to abiogenesis. Scope, please.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob "Can you point to one? And not to one that merely buys into it, but one that is "researching" it (LOL! had to laugh at that word 'research')"
The LOL part of this is, the cell WILL IN FACT be intelligently designed before chemical reactions & physics create a cell. Craig Venter said in Feb 2011 science will soon intelligently design a cell,
And the fact that science practices I. D. every day. I.D. is simply using intelligent foresight to arrange sequences
toobsucker 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScientificBob
Darwinian evolution has already been falsified and most evolutionists are to steeped in their blind dogma to realize it.
The conserved elements falsify the theory. Most proteins, thus DNA sequences that code for them are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms, the sequences that code for the ribosomes for example, can not be changed
How does a theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, produce functional elements that can not evolve?
toobsucker 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
« Darwinian evolution has already been falsified »
Well, yes. And replaced with more modern variants, up to the "modern synthesis", which *is* (at least in its central hypotheses) consistent with the data.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
« are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms »
The very fact of evolution is what conserves them. They are subject to natural selection more than other genes because more of the cell has grown to depend on these proteins.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
« produce functional elements that can not evolve? »
Even if it were true that they do not evolve at all (and it's not), then this could still be explained in evolutionary terms. After all, if key parts of the cellular mechanism had grown to depend on certain proteins, it would be expected that even slight variations in that gene would not pass natural selection.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker
Conserved elements are explained by evolution.
Then again, your entire premise that there exist conserved elements *assumes evolution*.
So if you reject evolution, your argument fails for lack of premise.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
@toobsucker I suggest you read what the bible really teaches (Slight troll, but really)
MrSilentDoubleA 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSilentDoubleA "I suggest you read what the bible really teaches"
Can you be a bit more specific, "the bible" is a huge book with many different topics.
toobsucker 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Start by reading the quotes from evolutionary science on my youtube page. "
Wow. Could you be more obvious in your logical fallacies? Quotes? On friggin' youtube? Seriously?
"The reason why the genome "appears as if designed" is because it was" Evidence?
ScientificBob 1 week ago
@toobsucker "you did not address the fact that there are many I.D. proponents that do not believe in the bible or God"
Can you point to one? And not to one that merely buys into it, but one that is "researching" it (LOL! had to laugh at that word 'research')
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Your assertion that creationism and I.D. are synonymous is testable"
Yes. Yes, it is. 'cdesign proponentsists' is the result of that test.
"you have atheists that believe in I.D. via aliens" And they heared about ID and ID arguments from christian morons.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "under the pretense its creationism"
Look up the term 'cdesign proponentsists'. What pretense?
"every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified"
Care to give an example?
"Atheistic evolution requires 100% of the system to be subject to change" Where did you get that crazy idea? This is simply not true.
ScientificBob 1 week ago
the obese lady at the end makes no sense in arguing that Genesis is a fairytale becoz the guy is not even asking for genesis to be taught at school. That's why we need faith to believe in bible...but when we need the same faith to believe in scientific fairytales such as evolution then that is the problem
ernie2111 1 month ago
It is impossible to counter all the false assertions that creationists spew out in the time frame that a debate format allows. Why would a genuine scientist want to debate such an obvious fraudster as Kent Hovind anyway?
dingodavid 1 month ago
@dingodavid Precisely!, it takes time to fit a square peg in a round hole.
shakinahstorm 1 month ago
@dingodavid Even if he is a tax fraud which I don't think he is but we'll sau you're right, what does that have to do with his message?
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesRideout123 "what does that have to do with his message"
It kind of undermines his entire persona. Since he's so full of it with his 'christian' bullocks. Being a tax fraud and convicted liar kinda puts his own honesty into question. Does he really believe all that he spews? Because his actions really aren't in line with his beliefs nor with what he says his beliefs are.
But idd, his criminal private life is irrelavent to the points he make (but it doesn't help).
ScientificBob 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hovind got fucking OWNED !
TheThunderduck 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
True! Why would a scientist or professor who earned their degrees thru hard work want to debate a high school graduate with phony paper mill diplomas received thru correspondence like Hovind.
Why lower themselves to debate a known grifter & conman currently incarcerated for stealing?
Those that believe the man descended from the incest of Adam & Eve's children later the incest of Noah's children will continue to do because of a deep fear of an invisible god that can only be seen by dead people.
MrHoolits 2 months ago
A dog and a banana are related? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
rmaynard626 2 months ago
Everyone claps for the Atheist/Darwinists and totally ignore the message of Kent.
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
@JamesRideout123
His message doesn't reach educated people.
OptimalElement 2 months ago
@OptimalElement Because the so called "Educated People" throw a wall in front of them and refuse to allow any thought to get through it. Mr. Hovind explained very clearly in this video about the lies in the textbooks and that they should be removed and not once did he ever say that Creationism should be taught in the schools at least in the taxpayer sense. He is saying that the lies are in the textbooks should be taken out that is all. Did you hear the audience respond and say keep lies in text?
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
@JamesRideout123
It is Hovind that posts lies and misrepresentation, uses straw arguments and logical fallacies and quote mining. I've seen his seminars, the amount of bullshit I heard was unbelievable. He knows absolutely nothing of genetics, physics or any part of science. He thinks comets caused the ice poles! (just to name one example). And you speaking of no thought coming true... the audience he address have no understanding of science.
OptimalElement 2 months ago
@OptimalElement The man who got up the, the Darwinist in the white shirt didn't help get his point of view across by getting all out of gear yelling at Mr. Hovind and then sitting downs slash refusing to address Mr. Hovind. If he really wanted to destroy Hovind he should of asked each question individually instead of giving him loaded questions slash 4 questions at once. Mr Hovind could not answer all the questions at once but he could individually.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123
I've heard hovind speaking with real scientists. Hovind always avoided answering the questions given to him. Look, lets put evolution debate aside for a moment. I know from what I hear in his seminars hovind has very little understanding of science in general. His ''PhD'' is from uncredited christian school. His 15 years of teaching is actually him home schooling his kids. He never done research, he never published scientific papers. He is a hoax and now he is in jail over tax.
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement You are not telling me exactly why Mr.Hovind is a bad educator etc based on his merit or what he is actually doing you are instead referring to his degree etc when Darwin himself had very little education.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123
I did tell you why. I can't put it all in one comment. Just give you individual examples. Just to name a few: He thinks comets caused the ice poles by smashing into earth. He thinks there was huge ice sheet in space around earth. He thinks one chromosome contains all information needed to build a human being. He thinks sun rays cause aging and clouds can stop x-rays. Any person with a science degree will know this is bullshit. You know why?
OptimalElement 1 month ago
@OptimalElement The Sun does contribute to aging. How do you know there was not a huge ice sheet around Earth? We never lived in that era. We do know that two teaspoons of DNA could reach the moon and back about 30x. I have a hard time believing that all of that information happened by chance over millions of years. Clouds will stop Sun rays. They won't stop all of them but they wills top many of them depending on the thickness of cloud cover.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123
There was no a huge ice sheet because in terms of physic, thermodynamics and chemically it is IMPOSSIBLE. In space exposed to the sun temperature is over a hundred degrees. How long you think ice sheet will survive? Let alone any evidence for it. Hovind himself said he doesn't know how it was, he just made it up. DNA and information did not happen by chance. Evolution DID NOT happen by chance. You need few centimeters of lead to stop x-rays, let alone some water vapor.
OptimalElement 1 month ago