I do agree we are not over crowded just poorly distributed because we are so nestalgic about where we come from, in any case science needs to be applied to manage rescources. But I would expand the moving philosphy to if it is too crowded where you live them the human race needs to expand off the planet into out space and colonise along the way to the farthest worlds. That is important.
Yes alot of people believe the Earth is billions of years old meaning we need to take it seriously and make good argumants against it not make jokes. You can't make that many assumptions and use normal logic. Also even if he does believe this he should not be so dogmatic about the Earth being that old that is hurful more than helpful.
Saying there will not be any conjecture if he just agrees with him is just lazy, I know he was largly joking but some people actually have this mentality and it is scary. We as Christains are supposed to welcome challeng different view points and even change even as rational people or scientists. That does not mean we really compromise or go against scripter but yes a Good philosphy welcomes challenge.
the world is definitely overcrowded so much so that by 2050 we'll be at 9.1 billion and not have enough resources to survive without fighting over valuable resources such as water and oil. This evidence comes from multiple sources btw.
@N303xspr3ss I don't think it matters if the plains are overcrowded or not. This is more strictly based on resources and places where life can flourish. You may as well be asking me to go to Antarctica to see if it is overcrowded.
Just a logistical question. Assuming that there were only 8 people alive after the flood and we didn't know the population of the earth before it. How can we know that it ends at 4400 years ago? how can he say that if you don't know the initial population of the earth to trace it back? If you look at 5:10 the highest population around the flood has a big question mark. So how can this prove anything?
@viper100200 The population would be much higher, add in the fact we have no evidence of any of the evolution theories, conjecture of the increase of fossils further back than around 6,000 years old. The ones found were proven to be lies and faulty such as a jaw filed down. All of the oldest bones finding before around 6,000 years old have been proven lies and false to date. India does not prove the world is overcrowded, it proves there is crowding on that particular continent.
It is so possible living long if you eat what GOD said to eat thats good for you,DO things what GOD said whats good for you to do and worship what GOD said its good for you to worship and not walk the walk of your own feeble understanding.
@stdominic3 HAHAHA you're a fucking IDIOT! How bout you prove with just a SHRED of scientific evidence that ANY claim you make is true. If you do that, i'll convert immediately.
BUT, since you can't, how about you stop lying to people, think LOGICALLY, and stop causing your own insults by claiming OTHER people are as radically stupid as you are. Your ignorance is astounding, following the idiot Hovind here blindly.
Look at the facts, the evidence, don't refute what just isn't in the Bible.
This crap about the world being over populated if you follow the evolution idea is crap. First off, we don't believe people could live to be 900 years old. Early humans probably died in their 20's or 30's. No medicine, no science, and probably a high death rate when having children. These people were probably lucky to be able to give birth to one child.
@Eye2EyeIIIV you have copied and pasted that comment on every one of these videos. What is your point? And I don't think anyone even said that. And even if they did, I don't agree with them but hovind is NOT intruducing any evidence that counts for anything. They are all provably wrong on one level or another.
Who cares if the worlds population can squeeze into a tiny space....the fact and the problem is that they can't live there! The concern is about the usage of resources and production of food, not how many people could squeeze into a county for a day, dipshit.
Scientific evidence shows that the earth is young. Only partisan evolutionists pretend otherwise by suppressing the evidence and threatening scientists into silence.
Geologists have to deny the flood to be able to believe a lie like "millions" of years old. Tree rings are bunk. Ice cores are bunk. There are NOT "annual" rings. And the Egyptians lived in 2000 BC.
How many falsehoods are you going to blurt out as if it proves anything.
Perhaps we should look at what YOU are classifying as "scientific evidence".
PS: I've literally watched all that is available for Hovind's ministry - he IS using good Science to show how evolutionism was proven wrong a long time ago, & that nearly everything has been running in accordance with it till now.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The people who comment on this video just do not seem to even watch. They only care about trying to justify a false theory or want to try and diminish God. There is nothing in the video that I can see any arguments with whatsoever. If people want to trust the dogmatic scientific priests who have been proven to be fraudulent then I guess they make there choice. I thank Kent Hovind for all he has done and for what he will do in the future.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gregrutz your way off base. You have been programed by the system. Just like most people these days. You should step back and question why you allow yourself to fall for it. If you don't like Hovind then don't watch him. You have not made any valid comments about anything yet you claim that Hovind lies. That is just weak.
Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it is billions of years old. The earth is now dated at 4,566 million years old, + or - 2 million years.
@gregrutz do you have anything to gain from trying to disprove the bible? like idk... making everybody including chrsitians miserable and without hope? youre just a satanic jerk.
yup. the universe created me one gene at a time, starting with a pool of chemicals on this rock
There are many prophets of many different religions. some are more talented orators than others. you happen to follow Jesus instead of Mohamed or whatever.
hehe :) obviously, christianity was engineered 2000 yrs ago by some elite to maintain power after fall of roman empire. it borrowed from pagan ideas. religions themselves *evolve*.. orthodox catholic unitarian moroms .. obviously religions have some survival value for humans which is why nature invented them.
mine is just peices of logic and evidence peiced together. No one benefits from me following it. There's no comfort in it. it's difficult to imagine it was contrived for a purpose.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
not too difficult to think of a purpose, how bout..your contrived to contrive things of your own. be a mini-creator. which BTW, animals don't create things to better other species, just to sustain themselves... kinda morbid :(. humans on the other hand can create things to help other species.
when you put it like that it seems counter intuititve
what it's really about is we started with a big energy store, then the energy organises itself while it burns - think of a featureless liquid, then you ignite it it's very animated, then the result is random lifeless smoke. (we're the fire)
you can see all the *construction* done by energy (oil) channeled through our machines.. similarly the energy coming in from the sun making plants grow.
i've seen the big-bang described as whitehole; energy later channeled.
easy to see fuel get burned in a channeled way to increase information - our brains do it all the time.
kent does this over&over... strawmans & half-explaining something so that leyman get wrong idea
I presume you're aware of sci concepts that are *completely* counter-intuitive (quantum-mechanics, & relativity) that are proven in working tech. (semiconductors, nuclear-power)
think about how we went from <2billion humans 100 yrs ago, then burned lots of energy from oil that made infrastructure (*machines*) that then created another 4billion humans who couldn't otherwise exist.
think about the internet- gluing everyones brains together it makes a new hivemind, bigger than individual humans :) we can clearly see oil adding complexity & another layer of evolution within 1 lifetime
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
alright, we organized all that.. the system needed a designer, and someone with creativity, manipulating resources to bring things together, building more complexity.
instead of an explosion and fire.
pretty much the complete opposite,
this was forcast in the Bible BTW. Daniel 12:4
4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."
more people travel than ever before, and an increase in knowledge.
but why not save a step and just claim we always existed :)
i always like to say god is a metaphor for nature. imagine rest of creatures being like interconnected cells.. with a hivemind.
IMO it looks like "intelligent design" because each peice of complexity added to each creature is in feedback to the remaining assembly of creatures.. one step at a time all the way back to simple chemical. I like the "pantheist" idea.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
trying to follow yah here.
isn't pantheism the belief in multiple gods?
perhaps God is from another dimension, able to work in multiple time frames and dimensions, creating infinity forever, because he is, and always will be.
of which BTW, science is just learning about multiple dimensions.
-if you said "god in bigger universe" or "god contains universe" i couldn't argue
-yes recent ideas involve multiple universes (branching off..) and in higher dimensions (11d)..
Currently pure *hypothesis* no prediction/experiment but deep mathematical games trying to simplify explanation for what we see. e.g. universe IS finely tuned for life. so simpler to assume there are many universes with values randomly assigned. etc..
(i) look at feral kids. human in jungle IS like monkey
(ii) look at global industry. - worldwide interconnected food distribution & resources - everyone's brain connected via media, creating "herd organism"
I assert - a simple monkey-like creature has created a more complex technological organism (which in turn has allowed human numbers to rise ten fold - just as humans grow cows & wheat for food)
it's EVOLUTION in our recent history, ADDING complexity
we're talking about the aftermath, structure appearing as the debris cools
look into turbulence..
life is boundary between order & chaos
imagine the universe is a giant computer.. there's your "mind of god"
you an come up with many analogies.. i do think religious ideas are interesting, but to take any single book literally is unwise.. do you really beleive christians got it right & hindus got it wrong? or were both groups making speculative poetry trying to describe the same thing?
... connected by many forces. mainly gravity & electrostatic.
as you know, gravity pulls us toward earth & keeps earth around sun causing years (how much mass is there in the universe.. how many suns).. and electrostatic repulsion between atoms of ground & your feet stops you falling all the way to earths centre :)
crystals one example of molecules spontaneously doing that.
mathematics a v.abstract language.
humans are designed (sorry. Evolved :) ) to interact with other humans (& animals) - so before science, people did their best to approximate natures forces.. with *personifications* using their language
polytheistic religions saw many forces so made many gods monotheistic assumed all were connected as one. pantheistic = closest to truth - nature=god
religion proved usefull because it was software in human minds helping civilization. buddhist idea of interconnectedness = v. usefull philosophy.. mapping very well to nature's forces (interconnected energy & resource cycles)
as atheist i see each creature as one cell in nature. i do think people need philosophy like this to plug the gap when we ditch religion
evolution is usually explained as "survival of the fitest", but today we look at it holistically (gaia hypothesis). everything evolves in context against everything else... with various symbioses & interconnected cycles. each creature is one cell in the greater organism
civilizations show addition of complexity within histoty.
obviously if you;re going to reject the scientific evidence for long timescales you're not going to see how the complexity appeared, one step at a time. no matter how complex something is, given enough time and a big enough universe (take a look down a telescope..) the complexity can appear randomly
not all skeletons are preserved as fossils. some transitional forms eliminated in period of rapid change, didn't survive long enough to leave fossils.
analogy is "statistical profiling" in computers (this counts the number of times each line of program is run per unit time, so engineer can fine-tune). When sample-rate is too low, some lines record "zero" even though they run.
why did god put useless apendix organ? more work for surgeons
i see, all the important fossils are missing or changed so fast we missed them..
darnit..
dunno about the appendix, can we explain everything else in the human body except that?
I read a few years ago, but cant recall, they figured out the appendix does have a use, I'll try and find that article. but plenty of tangents to go off here.. sigh
it housed bacteria used to eat digest grass but shrank as our diet changed now it just gets infected and bloody hurts so a surgeon has to cut it out or we die :)
in natural selection, without the surgeons it would carry on shrinking.
"all the important fossils" fosilization is a rare process. maybe 0.000001% of skeletons get preserved i dont know... you get the idea.
they get crushed/dissolved; bacteria decompose them... most material associated with life is recycled. (or we run out and die)
correct - the more numerous an animal is, the more likely we are to see a fossil of it. if only 1 in 10million skeletons is fossilized, that means we need 10million of a specific creature to have lived to see 1 fossil of it
rate of change changes. some creatures mutate quickly (hammerhead shark beleived to be extreme sudden mutation that worked well :) ) whereas others find a stable niche.. sharks beleived to be unchanged since dinosaurs.
pretty sure Flood is based on factual event, such as rising sea levels at end of an iceage or even atlantis type event- because many cultures have similar story.
if everyone lived in coastal cities this would to all intents and purposes be just like whole world flooding :)
there's the fascinating idea that there's an episode of civilization lost in catastrophic event (recorded history ~4000 yrs, but human form for 100,000+yrs)
so when we think there should be a species, but cant find any, we really smart scientists give it a term that sounds good, with absolutely zero evidence.
thats a one-liner missing important parts of the whole process.. kent thru & thru.
it didn't happen overnight nor over 7 nights. it took.. hehe you know the rest :)
have you watched cosmos all the way through incidently. carl sagan can explain it much better than me.
i did start with religious education. baptized catholic i think. mother took me to church. no doubt you think i lost my way due to corrupt government allowing poisonous ideas :)
well, Im convinced from an miracle i watched, when my mother was healed by prayer and laying on of hands, along with overwhelming evidence of a world wide flood. along with the historical accuracy of the Bible, and dinosaurs carvings and such.. along with the theology of loving thy neigbor, and forgiving others.
Fuck Tard Hovind: "...did jesus not understand modern science...?" "Jesus" supposedly lived 2,000 years ago....modern science....lmfao. "The entire population can fit inside Jacksonville, FL." Maybe....shoulder to fucking shoulder, they can't LIVE in that environment you stupid cunt.
you are so dumb, think about what you are saying, you think its silly about what he said, but if you believe evolution, there would be trillions of people!!!!shoulder to shoulder all over the planet and miles high!!
No, you are so dumb, you filthy lying piece of shit. Everything over-produces. Trillions of people can't even live here. That sort of gross over-population causes war, famine, and disease. If trillions of people could live here healthily, there would be trillions of fucking people. There is not.
And YES, I don't think, rather I KNOW that Kent Hovind is retarded. His statements prove this multiple times in THIS fucking "seminar."
What logic are you using to say that if evolution were true, there would be trillions of people on Earth? Does evolution somehow do away with such minor, piffling concerns as, erm, food supply, territory, disease? Curious. Perhaps you are right that religion restricts population growth, though, considering that the god of the Bible slaughters countless millions for arbitrary and obscure reasons...
"If Frank, a University of Iowa physicist, is correct, millions of small comets made of ice and water strike the Earth's atmosphere every year; the continuous influx of cosmic HO, according to this theory, created our lakes, rivers and oceans, and will one day submerge the planet.". This shows that it is at least possible for the earth to be deluged, even today. This scientist completely disagrees with any "preclusion".
I have heard of him. He fairly recently debated Planetary Meteorologist, Dr. Adam Showman. I believe it is up on YouTube...? They were discussing the effects of Cosmic materials introduced to earth's atmosphere and land every year on our planets magnetosphere. Frank and Adam spoke directly of the minimal amounts of water that could be trapped as vapor. Even this is purely theorectical, at those temperatures. The only material getting through today for sure are heavy metals.
You should check out their FAQs, there is probably a lot of back and forth and a lot more tests should be done, but they do have evidence in their favor that large objects carrying water are entering our atmosphere and being vaporized. What the various ways of getting huge amounts of water into the earth does is establish the possibility that a global flood could occur or even has occured, it kills your "density of earth makes a global flood impossible" argument.
Hmm, what happened to the Old Testament being the literal word of "god" and the New Testament being largely inspired....as most YECs seem to postulate? ( at least on YouTube )
Yes, but it apparently "spoke" to people like Moses, if one can speak, one can command....as in what to write. Actually it doesn't, namely because there is still no evidence that it happened AND where is the water? If earth had ever been totally covered, the density would NOT be about 5.5g/cm3 it would Have to be far less, even today. There is no alternative.
Yes, but there is no evidence that God told every single person what to write, He should've just given moses the entire bible in that case. It does establish the possibility, remember that even if there is no evidence, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. in fact, one of the points in their favor is that if there wasn't a large influx of water, the loss of water due to subduction would leave this planet dry.
During subduction water isn't really lost though. It's geologic activity, not water just magically vanishing from earth's water cycle. That is true, about evidence. However, it's not about absence of evidence for it....it is that and moutains of evidence against it....to the contrary.
Regarding subjection the water is lost to the mantle, it doesn't magically disappear. According to the paper, there needs to be an influx of water to make up for it. Even if I agreed there is evidence to the contrary, that doesn't mean it's impossible as you keep arguing.
I don't know about in the futur BerserkManga. However, right now and in the past, it was. Hmm. the mantle, that pesky little problem for the so-called "fountains of the deep" eh?
No, ""The losses of surface water due to subduction into the mantle are greater by factors of 7 to 20 than the supply given by volcanic activity." according to the paper. Thats why we need a large influx of water.
Volcanic activity provides little in the way of water. However, the green house gases and heat released facilitate the water cycle and earth's continual transition of water from liquid, to vapor, to ice. The planet needs that cycle to sustain any advanced life.
It is, through our current reserve of ice, and it is replenished. We are not gaining or losing and substantial amount of water on an even yearly basis. That's why we need to be soo very careful regarding these gases that are not released by natural processes. Like our factories etc. upsetting a delicate balance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The paper makes the argument that the rate of loss to the mantle, as I already said, is inconsistent with the earth's 4 billion year history in that we should be bone dry about now. There is no evidence that our reserves of ice could possibly recompensate this loss.
Actually there is, besides the understatement that geologic activity has proven to be sporadic at times and less active in others. This sporadic activity is generally found to be the cause of the first mass extinction, caused by what's known as a "super ploom." This naturally upsets the water cycle and thereby, defecates that atmosphere's ability to shield from harmful rays.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, subduction rates can be measured and depend on several factors. That is what the paper is based on. Really just read the paper or have an expert read it and try to submit a refereed paper questioning the conclusion.
Hmm? Nothing revolving around geologic activity can be measured with absolute certainty. That's why there are no exact dates as to age of of almost anything. With age the closest we can get to is approximate and with overall activity, it depends on a host of factors. Of course YECs virtually deny geologic activity's role in shaping our world today. However, it is late in Lübeck and I have to go for now. I actually fell asleep just now. Schönes Wochenende (german for have a nice weekend)
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused or you're deliberately lying yourself.
(To Christians) Why Genesis is important: Why is marriage one man for one woman? Why does man have dominion? Why is there sin? Why is there death and suffering? Why is there a curse? Why are there fossils & layers of strata? Why do we wear clothes? Why do we have to work? Why do we have a 7-day week? Why is Jesus called the 'Last Adam'? What's the Gospel's foundation? (Answer: GENESIS 1 11!!!)
He wasn't the first geologist, there were already geologists around. He is considered to be the father of *modern* geology, but that doesn't make him the first geologist.
Overcrowding has only to do with replenishing and supplying food to everyone in the world, why do you think people are starving? Kent is stupefying people with every word he speaks.
"Kent Hovind's a fraud, a liar!" Oh, liar, shmiar; I've searched up nearly every article and proof he has presented and I have found absolutely NO flaw in them. He may seem "crazy" if he did have "tax frauds", or whatever, but at least he may know some reasonable stuff we don't.
PS: The Evolution theory is reasonably stupid; the Creation message is reasonable reasonable (and makes a whole lot more sense and meaning.)
That debate is here on youtube, he won't debate Kent because Kent is oblivious to evidence, common-sense and proof. It was really bad because here is Ross with a decent education and knowledge etc just suffering a bit from the "god" delusion. Then we have Kent who is still living like we were in the bronze age. He won't be debatin ya anytime soon now Kent. Kinda hard from prison I bet.
You're right, it is plain and good 'ol fashion madness, luny-bin crap. He is wrong, no geologist would ever waste their time and money to look for evidence of something that can not even happen. Earth can not flood, to say as much displays a rudimentary lack of education regarding earth's mass and water cycle.
Evidence...? How old are ya may I inquire? Anyhow, by way of earth's surface area, density and the fact that 4,000 years ago, and even 6,000 years ago earth's water cycle was a closed system. It was not always, (back when earth lacked a sufficient atmosphere) however, that was over 4 billions years ago. If there was enough water to "flood the earth" then it would be flooded today. There is no evidence to the contrary. It would evaporate and fall elsewhere, this would be a water world.
Who are you jimmy two times? Evidence for your claim, you said "can not even happen. Earth can not flood," where are the references? Anyone can claim anything they want, where is your *evidence*.
evolutionists are proof that humans did not evolve.
ikawpipa 4 weeks ago
What an idiot, sitting in jail for tax fraud, and also a fraud in his teachings.
Fishingbirb 1 month ago
This is the quintessential Christian atheists despise; his arguments, logic and conclusions are repulsive.
jwdogg1551 2 months ago
I do agree we are not over crowded just poorly distributed because we are so nestalgic about where we come from, in any case science needs to be applied to manage rescources. But I would expand the moving philosphy to if it is too crowded where you live them the human race needs to expand off the planet into out space and colonise along the way to the farthest worlds. That is important.
RJL738 9 months ago
Yes alot of people believe the Earth is billions of years old meaning we need to take it seriously and make good argumants against it not make jokes. You can't make that many assumptions and use normal logic. Also even if he does believe this he should not be so dogmatic about the Earth being that old that is hurful more than helpful.
RJL738 9 months ago
Saying there will not be any conjecture if he just agrees with him is just lazy, I know he was largly joking but some people actually have this mentality and it is scary. We as Christains are supposed to welcome challeng different view points and even change even as rational people or scientists. That does not mean we really compromise or go against scripter but yes a Good philosphy welcomes challenge.
RJL738 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You would like to cum surrounded by my sister benaughtyman.info
malinihansika 1 year ago
the world is definitely overcrowded so much so that by 2050 we'll be at 9.1 billion and not have enough resources to survive without fighting over valuable resources such as water and oil. This evidence comes from multiple sources btw.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 year ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I want you to go through the plains of america and tell me if the world is overcrouded then
N303xspr3ss 7 months ago
@N303xspr3ss I don't think it matters if the plains are overcrowded or not. This is more strictly based on resources and places where life can flourish. You may as well be asking me to go to Antarctica to see if it is overcrowded.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 7 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence kk lol :D
N303xspr3ss 7 months ago
Just a logistical question. Assuming that there were only 8 people alive after the flood and we didn't know the population of the earth before it. How can we know that it ends at 4400 years ago? how can he say that if you don't know the initial population of the earth to trace it back? If you look at 5:10 the highest population around the flood has a big question mark. So how can this prove anything?
viper100200 1 year ago
@viper100200 The population would be much higher, add in the fact we have no evidence of any of the evolution theories, conjecture of the increase of fossils further back than around 6,000 years old. The ones found were proven to be lies and faulty such as a jaw filed down. All of the oldest bones finding before around 6,000 years old have been proven lies and false to date. India does not prove the world is overcrowded, it proves there is crowding on that particular continent.
MckeesportRoseGarden 1 year ago
The oil age is resonsible for the population explosion.
thetwentyteens 1 year ago
i guess this guy never heard about the industrial revolution ....
goliathmassacre 1 year ago
The world is not crowded? Been to India lately? And try feeding it.
Cardigen 1 year ago
It is so possible living long if you eat what GOD said to eat thats good for you,DO things what GOD said whats good for you to do and worship what GOD said its good for you to worship and not walk the walk of your own feeble understanding.
stdominic3 1 year ago
@stdominic3 HAHAHA you're a fucking IDIOT! How bout you prove with just a SHRED of scientific evidence that ANY claim you make is true. If you do that, i'll convert immediately.
BUT, since you can't, how about you stop lying to people, think LOGICALLY, and stop causing your own insults by claiming OTHER people are as radically stupid as you are. Your ignorance is astounding, following the idiot Hovind here blindly.
Look at the facts, the evidence, don't refute what just isn't in the Bible.
brj0207 1 year ago
This crap about the world being over populated if you follow the evolution idea is crap. First off, we don't believe people could live to be 900 years old. Early humans probably died in their 20's or 30's. No medicine, no science, and probably a high death rate when having children. These people were probably lucky to be able to give birth to one child.
This Kent guy is a moron.
062389 1 year ago
the andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, how did that light reach us in 6000 years?
lax2711 1 year ago
@lax2711 God works in mysterious ways lol.
timmieturner 1 year ago
Someone said "I wish Carl Sagan would come back to life and kill this man!"
FOR WHAT?!
For legitimately introducing people to evidence that they are never shown in pro-New World Order schools?!
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV you have copied and pasted that comment on every one of these videos. What is your point? And I don't think anyone even said that. And even if they did, I don't agree with them but hovind is NOT intruducing any evidence that counts for anything. They are all provably wrong on one level or another.
chattiestspike2 1 year ago
Population has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
Land is cheap and has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
Does he ever show any evidence, like Egyptians 6000 years ago!!
gregrutz 1 year ago
I see you evolutionists are rating down and "spamming" our comments.
You're just too afraid to look at the scientific evidence.
I'd encourage you to give an open mind, and put away your prior commitments.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
Why don't you look at the evidence, not shit that Kent made up. Read a geology book or a biology book or an astronomy book.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
here is the scientific evidence, look at it with an open mind......
Geologists knew the earth was Millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was Billions of years old.
Tree rings go back 10,000 years
Ice cores go back 100,000 years
Egyptians lived in 6000 BC, 8000 years ago!
Kent won't accept any of these facts.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The entire world's population could even crowd into the tiny state of Connecticut!
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Who cares if the worlds population can squeeze into a tiny space....the fact and the problem is that they can't live there! The concern is about the usage of resources and production of food, not how many people could squeeze into a county for a day, dipshit.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Comment removed
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
The earth is now dated at 4,566 million years old,
Was Jesus lying? What did Jesus ever write?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Everyone but Kent knows the earth is old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz
Scientific evidence shows that the earth is young. Only partisan evolutionists pretend otherwise by suppressing the evidence and threatening scientists into silence.
herbs814 2 years ago
@herbs814
Geologists knew the earth was Millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was Billions of years old.
Tree rings go back 10,000 years
Ice cores go back 100,000 years
Egyptians lived in 6000 BC
Evolutionists don't care.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz
Geologists have to deny the flood to be able to believe a lie like "millions" of years old. Tree rings are bunk. Ice cores are bunk. There are NOT "annual" rings. And the Egyptians lived in 2000 BC.
How many falsehoods are you going to blurt out as if it proves anything.
herbs814 2 years ago
@herbs814
Kent says even popular religious speakers say the earth is old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz
Kent also shows that they are wrong.
herbs814 2 years ago
@herbs814
That's great to hear, I wish we had more people like u who r open minded & will at least look at the scientific data.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Geologists knew the earth was Millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it was Billions of years old.
Tree rings go back 10,000 years
Ice cores go back 100,000 years
Egyptians lived in 6000 BC, 8000 years ago!
gregrutz 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
I wish Kent would look at the Scientific evidence. He just makes up stuff to match the bible.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Perhaps we should look at what YOU are classifying as "scientific evidence".
PS: I've literally watched all that is available for Hovind's ministry - he IS using good Science to show how evolutionism was proven wrong a long time ago, & that nearly everything has been running in accordance with it till now.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
I believe you have watched this crap many times, it shows.
He is not using good science, he is bashing science. He does not accept biology, geology, astronomy, etc, etc.
Either he is wrong or every scientist in the world is wrong. He want you to believe it is ''God vs evolution''
It is Kents interpitation of the bible vs reality.
Evoultion has been accepted, not proven wrong. You need a reality check.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
No, most people think the earth is less than 10,000 years old and G-d made it.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
No, just fuddymentalists. Educated people know the earth is old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
If the earth is 6000 years old how, how do you explain dendrochronology [tree rings]. They can date up to 10,000 B. C. with an accuracy of One year.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Was Jesus lying? how do you know, he didn't write anything down.
Death before sin? There have been 5 mass extinctions on the earth, the last one 65 million years ago killed the dinosaurs and most life on earth.
It's in the rocks, study the fossils.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He uses no Logic, the population grew due to the industrial revolution, not just because it started 4000 years ago.
Does not follow. Error. Error.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The people who comment on this video just do not seem to even watch. They only care about trying to justify a false theory or want to try and diminish God. There is nothing in the video that I can see any arguments with whatsoever. If people want to trust the dogmatic scientific priests who have been proven to be fraudulent then I guess they make there choice. I thank Kent Hovind for all he has done and for what he will do in the future.
MinnesotaNorthStar 2 years ago
@MinnesotaNorthStar If you can't see any arguments with what he says, you have never opened a science book.
The earth is 4,566 million years old, + or - 2 million years
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gregrutz your way off base. You have been programed by the system. Just like most people these days. You should step back and question why you allow yourself to fall for it. If you don't like Hovind then don't watch him. You have not made any valid comments about anything yet you claim that Hovind lies. That is just weak.
MinnesotaNorthStar 2 years ago
@MinnesotaNorthStar valid comments
I just told you he does not use logic to prove his population bull shit. If you can't see that you are just stupid.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gregrutz the only BS that I see is coming from yourself.
MinnesotaNorthStar 2 years ago
@MinnesotaNorthStar
Yes, you are brainwashed by this IDiot.
And you have said nothing.
Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear chemists told them it is billions of years old. The earth is now dated at 4,566 million years old, + or - 2 million years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well that is just funny. Those geologists just like yourself are very imaginative and nothing more.
MinnesotaNorthStar 2 years ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz do you have anything to gain from trying to disprove the bible? like idk... making everybody including chrsitians miserable and without hope? youre just a satanic jerk.
deepharmonix 1 year ago
@deepharmonix
IS that like a secular humanist, I have been called that a lot.
I prefer 'scientist'.
gregrutz 1 year ago
i'd like to see Carl Sagan resurrected to beat the shit out of this idiot
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you must be a wimp, you need a dead guy to fight your battles
kkp5200 2 years ago
hovkind is repeatedly saying jesus this jesus that.
whats your point ???
i'm not a orator. I know sagan could argue and communicate better than me.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
obviously your not, cause you came from a rock!
couldn't resist the jab..
kkp5200 2 years ago
hehe :)
yup. the universe created me one gene at a time, starting with a pool of chemicals on this rock
There are many prophets of many different religions. some are more talented orators than others. you happen to follow Jesus instead of Mohamed or whatever.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
kinda like poof "theres a gene"
kkp5200 2 years ago
hehe :) obviously, christianity was engineered 2000 yrs ago by some elite to maintain power after fall of roman empire. it borrowed from pagan ideas. religions themselves *evolve*.. orthodox catholic unitarian moroms .. obviously religions have some survival value for humans which is why nature invented them.
mine is just peices of logic and evidence peiced together. No one benefits from me following it. There's no comfort in it. it's difficult to imagine it was contrived for a purpose.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
not too difficult to think of a purpose, how bout..your contrived to contrive things of your own. be a mini-creator. which BTW, animals don't create things to better other species, just to sustain themselves... kinda morbid :(. humans on the other hand can create things to help other species.
kkp5200 2 years ago
"cause you came from a rock!"
why is that any worse than having been created by some super-intelligence as some sort of plaything as you beleive.
creating good & evil, choice, suffering.. just for the "hell" of it (hehe pardon the pun)
wouldn't it be simpler to just beleive we always existed (regression q), or rather god just created the big-bang & it all evolved from there.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok, we came from an explosion..
generally explosions are a bad thing to living things.. haven't heard of too many explosions creating life....
kkp5200 2 years ago
when you put it like that it seems counter intuititve
what it's really about is we started with a big energy store, then the energy organises itself while it burns - think of a featureless liquid, then you ignite it it's very animated, then the result is random lifeless smoke. (we're the fire)
you can see all the *construction* done by energy (oil) channeled through our machines.. similarly the energy coming in from the sun making plants grow.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
generally speaking fire is a bad thing to *ALL* life
it's why we live here and not on the sun.
kkp5200 2 years ago
planets do come from supernovae debris
i've seen the big-bang described as whitehole; energy later channeled.
easy to see fuel get burned in a channeled way to increase information - our brains do it all the time.
kent does this over&over... strawmans & half-explaining something so that leyman get wrong idea
I presume you're aware of sci concepts that are *completely* counter-intuitive (quantum-mechanics, & relativity) that are proven in working tech. (semiconductors, nuclear-power)
walter0bz 2 years ago
think about how we went from <2billion humans 100 yrs ago, then burned lots of energy from oil that made infrastructure (*machines*) that then created another 4billion humans who couldn't otherwise exist.
think about the internet- gluing everyones brains together it makes a new hivemind, bigger than individual humans :) we can clearly see oil adding complexity & another layer of evolution within 1 lifetime
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
alright, we organized all that.. the system needed a designer, and someone with creativity, manipulating resources to bring things together, building more complexity.
instead of an explosion and fire.
pretty much the complete opposite,
this was forcast in the Bible BTW. Daniel 12:4
4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."
more people travel than ever before, and an increase in knowledge.
kkp5200 2 years ago
but why not save a step and just claim we always existed :)
i always like to say god is a metaphor for nature. imagine rest of creatures being like interconnected cells.. with a hivemind.
IMO it looks like "intelligent design" because each peice of complexity added to each creature is in feedback to the remaining assembly of creatures.. one step at a time all the way back to simple chemical. I like the "pantheist" idea.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
trying to follow yah here.
isn't pantheism the belief in multiple gods?
perhaps God is from another dimension, able to work in multiple time frames and dimensions, creating infinity forever, because he is, and always will be.
of which BTW, science is just learning about multiple dimensions.
kkp5200 2 years ago
-pantheism is just poetic atheism "god=nature"
-if you said "god in bigger universe" or "god contains universe" i couldn't argue
-yes recent ideas involve multiple universes (branching off..) and in higher dimensions (11d)..
Currently pure *hypothesis* no prediction/experiment but deep mathematical games trying to simplify explanation for what we see. e.g. universe IS finely tuned for life. so simpler to assume there are many universes with values randomly assigned. etc..
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
every explosion ever witnessed didn't organize molecules.
i think its safe to assume, complexity needs a designer and creator, like a planes, trains, and automobiles... did i miss a few?
kkp5200 2 years ago
view world as an alien observer..
(i) look at feral kids. human in jungle IS like monkey
(ii) look at global industry. - worldwide interconnected food distribution & resources - everyone's brain connected via media, creating "herd organism"
I assert - a simple monkey-like creature has created a more complex technological organism (which in turn has allowed human numbers to rise ten fold - just as humans grow cows & wheat for food)
it's EVOLUTION in our recent history, ADDING complexity
walter0bz 2 years ago
again these one liners miss the point.
(i) the explosion throws material outward
(ii) random lumpyness in the distribution causes clumps to form
(iii) the forces of nature do the rest. There's material infused with *energy* from that explosion. emergent structures.
e.g. atoms/molecules is just result of mathematical harmonics.. simple rules creating more than themselves.
Isn't it simpler to say god IS the matter+rules? rather than god MADE the matter+rules?
walter0bz 2 years ago
Look at FRACTALS... see how simple mathematical rules can create more complexity.
mandlebrot set. pattern with infinite variety & detail created by one equation "x->x*x+c"
there are many equations running in more dimensions behind nature.
if you have mathematical background its easy to see.
maths/science gives us the devices we argue with now
explosion organising - look at mushroom cloud shape from the chaos of an explosion.
but we're talking about many orders of magnitude more material.
walter0bz 2 years ago
explosions can be mathematically formulated, however they still separate molecules, never organizing them into something that is useful.
kkp5200 2 years ago
we're talking about the aftermath, structure appearing as the debris cools
look into turbulence..
life is boundary between order & chaos
imagine the universe is a giant computer.. there's your "mind of god"
you an come up with many analogies.. i do think religious ideas are interesting, but to take any single book literally is unwise.. do you really beleive christians got it right & hindus got it wrong? or were both groups making speculative poetry trying to describe the same thing?
walter0bz 2 years ago
"they still separate molecules,"
... connected by many forces. mainly gravity & electrostatic.
as you know, gravity pulls us toward earth & keeps earth around sun causing years (how much mass is there in the universe.. how many suns).. and electrostatic repulsion between atoms of ground & your feet stops you falling all the way to earths centre :)
walter0bz 2 years ago
plenty of cases of mathematics producing order
crystals one example of molecules spontaneously doing that.
mathematics a v.abstract language.
humans are designed (sorry. Evolved :) ) to interact with other humans (& animals) - so before science, people did their best to approximate natures forces.. with *personifications* using their language
polytheistic religions saw many forces so made many gods monotheistic assumed all were connected as one. pantheistic = closest to truth - nature=god
walter0bz 2 years ago
religion proved usefull because it was software in human minds helping civilization. buddhist idea of interconnectedness = v. usefull philosophy.. mapping very well to nature's forces (interconnected energy & resource cycles)
as atheist i see each creature as one cell in nature. i do think people need philosophy like this to plug the gap when we ditch religion
walter0bz 2 years ago
i must elaborate,
"christian values" = civilizing influence. (similarly buddhist values).
but if you need literal interpretation of one book or the other... all you have is conflict.
science = stronger basis
my hypothesis - consciousness (what you call "soul") = ascent of complexity
walter0bz 2 years ago
crystals are nice, however they are not useful
im still amazed that we look right past the most obvious.
everything complex that works together we see in our world needs design and construction.
we don't build airplanes by randomly throwing particles.
we cant even build the most simple useful objects.
but somehow Im supposed to believe that complex operating structures, be it living or dead arose from explosions, or whatever.
kkp5200 2 years ago
each creature is a varied prototype of the next design iteration...
millions of varied creatures, and millions of generations.
who designed the designer, isnt it simpler to say we always existed, if the designer could always have existed.
man created god in mans image,not the other way round :)
the things you mention are an example of complexity being added by natural objects (us)
the rare part was DNA appearing, once that happened the rest was relatively quick. big universe..
walter0bz 2 years ago
the designer always existed, perhaps your right. :)
kkp5200 2 years ago
you missed my point :)
occamms razor. given 2 competing theories, pick the simplest
an external designed designs things which can design..
simpler to say we always existed.
walter0bz 2 years ago
evolution is usually explained as "survival of the fitest", but today we look at it holistically (gaia hypothesis). everything evolves in context against everything else... with various symbioses & interconnected cycles. each creature is one cell in the greater organism
walter0bz 2 years ago
so lets name it revolution.. everything revolves around itself..
good one eh?
anyhoo, cant seem to get any answer regarding complex forms revolving from simple ones.
kkp5200 2 years ago
civilizations show addition of complexity within histoty.
obviously if you;re going to reject the scientific evidence for long timescales you're not going to see how the complexity appeared, one step at a time. no matter how complex something is, given enough time and a big enough universe (take a look down a telescope..) the complexity can appear randomly
walter0bz 2 years ago
why do you have a coccyx :) because your distant ancestors had tails. when they started walking upright, they no longer needed them
walter0bz 2 years ago
whats the apendix for. not usefull anymore, but distant ancestors used to eat different food.
why so many back problems. spinal column is not designed for walking upright.. we only did that fairly recently
walter0bz 2 years ago
"cant seem to get any answer regarding complex forms revolving from simple ones. "
emergant behaviour. energy can cause things to organise.
there are fractal patterns visible in simple chemical reactions.
flow of energy is key to understanding nature. This science creates machines like your car. or the tech we argue with :)
religion's story personifies nature. reality is it's all formulas and energy flow
walter0bz 2 years ago
the coccyx?
the appendix?
just because something is similar doesn't make it a different species.
where is the half monkey half human fossils, that probability tells should be more popular.
kkp5200 2 years ago
not all skeletons are preserved as fossils. some transitional forms eliminated in period of rapid change, didn't survive long enough to leave fossils.
analogy is "statistical profiling" in computers (this counts the number of times each line of program is run per unit time, so engineer can fine-tune). When sample-rate is too low, some lines record "zero" even though they run.
why did god put useless apendix organ? more work for surgeons
walter0bz 2 years ago
i see, all the important fossils are missing or changed so fast we missed them..
darnit..
dunno about the appendix, can we explain everything else in the human body except that?
I read a few years ago, but cant recall, they figured out the appendix does have a use, I'll try and find that article. but plenty of tangents to go off here.. sigh
kkp5200 2 years ago
it housed bacteria used to eat digest grass but shrank as our diet changed now it just gets infected and bloody hurts so a surgeon has to cut it out or we die :)
in natural selection, without the surgeons it would carry on shrinking.
"all the important fossils" fosilization is a rare process. maybe 0.000001% of skeletons get preserved i dont know... you get the idea.
they get crushed/dissolved; bacteria decompose them... most material associated with life is recycled. (or we run out and die)
walter0bz 2 years ago
oh, i read a little more carefully,
tee hee.
fossils are based on length of survival?
cmon. fossils are based on being covered in mud rapidly, much like occurs after or during a flood..
kkp5200 2 years ago
>>"fossils are based on length of survival?"
correct - the more numerous an animal is, the more likely we are to see a fossil of it. if only 1 in 10million skeletons is fossilized, that means we need 10million of a specific creature to have lived to see 1 fossil of it
rate of change changes. some creatures mutate quickly (hammerhead shark beleived to be extreme sudden mutation that worked well :) ) whereas others find a stable niche.. sharks beleived to be unchanged since dinosaurs.
walter0bz 2 years ago
[lost my post?!]
pretty sure Flood is based on factual event, such as rising sea levels at end of an iceage or even atlantis type event- because many cultures have similar story.
if everyone lived in coastal cities this would to all intents and purposes be just like whole world flooding :)
there's the fascinating idea that there's an episode of civilization lost in catastrophic event (recorded history ~4000 yrs, but human form for 100,000+yrs)
walter0bz 2 years ago
so species changed quickly, therefore no fossils,
I see..
I think I've heard of punctuated equilibrium,
so when we think there should be a species, but cant find any, we really smart scientists give it a term that sounds good, with absolutely zero evidence.
kkp5200 2 years ago
it's important we state when things are *hypotheses* as oppoesd to theories.
of course we can't see every single fossil - we'd have to dig up every single bit of earth :) and plenty just disolved getting recycled.
white cliffs of dover are beleived to be crushed shells.. and they themselves are being eroded.. the material goes back into the sea ..
make reasonable guesses as to whats likely/feasible.
walter0bz 2 years ago
excellent response..
thank you
kkp5200 2 years ago
sexual vs asexual reproduction
just why did god create males & females? - when plenty of species just reproduce without needing 2 to join.
evolution says sexual repro is to accelerate evolution
- more variety produced by crossing different specimens
- eugenics aspect that males must prove fitness before females give licence to breed (or vica versa)
- polygamy allows rare adaptation to multiply more (eg women's instinct is to seek rare alpha-male but trick other males to provide)
walter0bz 2 years ago
there are mutations.
ok
kkp5200 2 years ago
still wondering what this has to do with explosions organizing into complex life forms.
kkp5200 2 years ago
thats a one-liner missing important parts of the whole process.. kent thru & thru.
it didn't happen overnight nor over 7 nights. it took.. hehe you know the rest :)
have you watched cosmos all the way through incidently. carl sagan can explain it much better than me.
i did start with religious education. baptized catholic i think. mother took me to church. no doubt you think i lost my way due to corrupt government allowing poisonous ideas :)
to me evolution is just much more convincing
walter0bz 2 years ago
well, Im convinced from an miracle i watched, when my mother was healed by prayer and laying on of hands, along with overwhelming evidence of a world wide flood. along with the historical accuracy of the Bible, and dinosaurs carvings and such.. along with the theology of loving thy neigbor, and forgiving others.
stuff like that...
thanks for the time.
kkp5200 2 years ago
thanks for the time.
there will always be opposing views and the value of the internet is ability to discuss and understand,
peace.
walter0bz 2 years ago
@kkp5200 U got it!
ferdnerkel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are lots of transitional fossils,
dinosaurs with feathers, fish with legs, etc.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Comment removed
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Fuck Tard Hovind: "...did jesus not understand modern science...?" "Jesus" supposedly lived 2,000 years ago....modern science....lmfao. "The entire population can fit inside Jacksonville, FL." Maybe....shoulder to fucking shoulder, they can't LIVE in that environment you stupid cunt.
1stLtDavis 2 years ago
you are so dumb, think about what you are saying, you think its silly about what he said, but if you believe evolution, there would be trillions of people!!!!shoulder to shoulder all over the planet and miles high!!
RedeemedSkaterDude 2 years ago
No, you are so dumb, you filthy lying piece of shit. Everything over-produces. Trillions of people can't even live here. That sort of gross over-population causes war, famine, and disease. If trillions of people could live here healthily, there would be trillions of fucking people. There is not.
And YES, I don't think, rather I KNOW that Kent Hovind is retarded. His statements prove this multiple times in THIS fucking "seminar."
1stLtDavis 2 years ago
What logic are you using to say that if evolution were true, there would be trillions of people on Earth? Does evolution somehow do away with such minor, piffling concerns as, erm, food supply, territory, disease? Curious. Perhaps you are right that religion restricts population growth, though, considering that the god of the Bible slaughters countless millions for arbitrary and obscure reasons...
ghanamuscle2000 2 years ago
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before dating methods showed it was 4,566 million years old.
RAmen.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Actually I'm really curious about this, if you can read this paper or pass it around to your physics buddies then let me know.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
From an excerpt:
"If Frank, a University of Iowa physicist, is correct, millions of small comets made of ice and water strike the Earth's atmosphere every year; the continuous influx of cosmic HO, according to this theory, created our lakes, rivers and oceans, and will one day submerge the planet.". This shows that it is at least possible for the earth to be deluged, even today. This scientist completely disagrees with any "preclusion".
BerserkManga 2 years ago
I have heard of him. He fairly recently debated Planetary Meteorologist, Dr. Adam Showman. I believe it is up on YouTube...? They were discussing the effects of Cosmic materials introduced to earth's atmosphere and land every year on our planets magnetosphere. Frank and Adam spoke directly of the minimal amounts of water that could be trapped as vapor. Even this is purely theorectical, at those temperatures. The only material getting through today for sure are heavy metals.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
You should check out their FAQs, there is probably a lot of back and forth and a lot more tests should be done, but they do have evidence in their favor that large objects carrying water are entering our atmosphere and being vaporized. What the various ways of getting huge amounts of water into the earth does is establish the possibility that a global flood could occur or even has occured, it kills your "density of earth makes a global flood impossible" argument.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Hmm, what happened to the Old Testament being the literal word of "god" and the New Testament being largely inspired....as most YECs seem to postulate? ( at least on YouTube )
Joseph565112 2 years ago
I don't think you are hearing them correctly, even Hovind says the only thing God wrote was the ten commandments.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Yes, but it apparently "spoke" to people like Moses, if one can speak, one can command....as in what to write. Actually it doesn't, namely because there is still no evidence that it happened AND where is the water? If earth had ever been totally covered, the density would NOT be about 5.5g/cm3 it would Have to be far less, even today. There is no alternative.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Yes, but there is no evidence that God told every single person what to write, He should've just given moses the entire bible in that case. It does establish the possibility, remember that even if there is no evidence, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. in fact, one of the points in their favor is that if there wasn't a large influx of water, the loss of water due to subduction would leave this planet dry.
D.Deming, PALAEO, 146, 33-51, 1999
BerserkManga 2 years ago
During subduction water isn't really lost though. It's geologic activity, not water just magically vanishing from earth's water cycle. That is true, about evidence. However, it's not about absence of evidence for it....it is that and moutains of evidence against it....to the contrary.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Regarding subjection the water is lost to the mantle, it doesn't magically disappear. According to the paper, there needs to be an influx of water to make up for it. Even if I agreed there is evidence to the contrary, that doesn't mean it's impossible as you keep arguing.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
I don't know about in the futur BerserkManga. However, right now and in the past, it was. Hmm. the mantle, that pesky little problem for the so-called "fountains of the deep" eh?
Joseph565112 2 years ago
If the evidence keeps mounting for "oceans and oceans" of water in crystal lattices, well, there's your fountains.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Also, the volcanic activity generated by subduction aids and facilitates our current water cycle.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
No, ""The losses of surface water due to subduction into the mantle are greater by factors of 7 to 20 than the supply given by volcanic activity." according to the paper. Thats why we need a large influx of water.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Volcanic activity provides little in the way of water. However, the green house gases and heat released facilitate the water cycle and earth's continual transition of water from liquid, to vapor, to ice. The planet needs that cycle to sustain any advanced life.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Sure but what does that have to do with the apparent need for the replacement of water due to loss to the mantle?
BerserkManga 2 years ago
It facilitates the slow melting of ice in the poles. It also aids in replenishing snow and ice there from our subsequent rates of precipitaion.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thats just recycled water though. There's a loss that needs to be accounted for.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
It is, through our current reserve of ice, and it is replenished. We are not gaining or losing and substantial amount of water on an even yearly basis. That's why we need to be soo very careful regarding these gases that are not released by natural processes. Like our factories etc. upsetting a delicate balance.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The paper makes the argument that the rate of loss to the mantle, as I already said, is inconsistent with the earth's 4 billion year history in that we should be bone dry about now. There is no evidence that our reserves of ice could possibly recompensate this loss.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Actually there is, besides the understatement that geologic activity has proven to be sporadic at times and less active in others. This sporadic activity is generally found to be the cause of the first mass extinction, caused by what's known as a "super ploom." This naturally upsets the water cycle and thereby, defecates that atmosphere's ability to shield from harmful rays.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, subduction rates can be measured and depend on several factors. That is what the paper is based on. Really just read the paper or have an expert read it and try to submit a refereed paper questioning the conclusion.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Hmm? Nothing revolving around geologic activity can be measured with absolute certainty. That's why there are no exact dates as to age of of almost anything. With age the closest we can get to is approximate and with overall activity, it depends on a host of factors. Of course YECs virtually deny geologic activity's role in shaping our world today. However, it is late in Lübeck and I have to go for now. I actually fell asleep just now. Schönes Wochenende (german for have a nice weekend)
Joseph565112 2 years ago 2
pardon me, plume... typo
Joseph565112 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Facts why Kent Hovind cannot be lying:
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused or you're deliberately lying yourself.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Dinosaurs died before sin, millions of years ago. So did trilobites.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Oh Kent, you are CLEARLY a prodigy in astrophysics.
rgaud8 2 years ago 3
YEA :D
Samson25877 2 years ago
The first geologist went looking for evidence of a global flood.
They believed in the bible story, like all people of the time.
They couldn't find any evidence of a GLOBAL flood, None.
They found that the deeper you dig, the more primitive the life forms you find.
They studied the rocks a concluded the world was millions of years old,
before dating methods were discovered.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
Do you have a reference for this? Who was the first geologist who went looking for evidence of a global flood?
BerserkManga 2 years ago
James Hutton MD was a Scottish geologist, physician, naturalist, chemist and experimental farmer. He is considered the father of modern geology.
Or Watch: Noahs flood debunked.
gregrutz 2 years ago
He wasn't the first geologist, there were already geologists around. He is considered to be the father of *modern* geology, but that doesn't make him the first geologist.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
You are an idiot. Stop saying things off the top of your head.
912sidvicious 2 years ago
Overcrowding has only to do with replenishing and supplying food to everyone in the world, why do you think people are starving? Kent is stupefying people with every word he speaks.
ColonelXerxus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Kent Hovind's a fraud, a liar!" Oh, liar, shmiar; I've searched up nearly every article and proof he has presented and I have found absolutely NO flaw in them. He may seem "crazy" if he did have "tax frauds", or whatever, but at least he may know some reasonable stuff we don't.
PS: The Evolution theory is reasonably stupid; the Creation message is reasonable reasonable (and makes a whole lot more sense and meaning.)
Eye2Eye35 2 years ago
That debate is here on youtube, he won't debate Kent because Kent is oblivious to evidence, common-sense and proof. It was really bad because here is Ross with a decent education and knowledge etc just suffering a bit from the "god" delusion. Then we have Kent who is still living like we were in the bronze age. He won't be debatin ya anytime soon now Kent. Kinda hard from prison I bet.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no "god delusion" thats just Dawkins-esque tripe
BerserkManga 2 years ago
You're right, it is plain and good 'ol fashion madness, luny-bin crap. He is wrong, no geologist would ever waste their time and money to look for evidence of something that can not even happen. Earth can not flood, to say as much displays a rudimentary lack of education regarding earth's mass and water cycle.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Please provide the evidence and references that show that it is impossible for the earth to flood.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Evidence...? How old are ya may I inquire? Anyhow, by way of earth's surface area, density and the fact that 4,000 years ago, and even 6,000 years ago earth's water cycle was a closed system. It was not always, (back when earth lacked a sufficient atmosphere) however, that was over 4 billions years ago. If there was enough water to "flood the earth" then it would be flooded today. There is no evidence to the contrary. It would evaporate and fall elsewhere, this would be a water world.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Do you have a reference for this? I would be interested in the mathematics and historical evidence for your claim.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Evidence for what BerserkManga? Hmm, evidence for what?
Joseph565112 2 years ago
Who are you jimmy two times? Evidence for your claim, you said "can not even happen. Earth can not flood," where are the references? Anyone can claim anything they want, where is your *evidence*.
BerserkManga 2 years ago
Joseph hello? I know you're still there, where are your references that shows an earth flood is impossible?
BerserkManga 2 years ago
There are several. No one credible has ever writte