Actually even according to secular scientists they Lucy was far more apelike than human. I don't believe humans have a common ancester with the great apes but why couldn't humans been more than one species. If many species can make up what is called a kind with other animals why can't humans have been more than one species that is not unreasonable.
Not only were neanderthals a different species from us but we interbrede with them they barried their dead with offerings and wore a form of makeup, were adaptive and looked very similar to us, Heidelburgensis burried their dead with offerings too. Even with this not only are we the same species we don't even take up all the diversity of a subspecies. Cro-magnons are actually our species not any sort of link.
The whole ape to man thing refers to common ancestry and a tree of hominids. I'm not sure if Hom Erectus was a species of human but humans were once more than ocne species, we have up to 11 percent of our DNA that is "not human" not including maybe more if the appropriate hominin could be found. Homo Antecesser, Homo Steinheimensis, Homo Cepranensis and Homo Heidelburgensis or just some of the compliment of humans that have walked the Earth.
Oh really? "Chimps stay Chimps?" The only reason why you hate evolution is because you have absolutely no understanding of it. Animals don't just transform spontaneously, parents pass down the genes they have and the skills they've inherited onto future generations, and over time, such skills become refined enough to become physical mutations.
Thanks for proving my point. Come on, look at the similarities between humans and apes! The nose, the mouth, fingernails, body type, DNA structure...This has been proven in a lab time and time and time again, and yet you throw all of that research and progress out the window in favor of the myths of a bronze age civilization.
you say "similarities between humans and apes" proves evolution. do you not consider the fact that their is similar design because apes and humans have the same designer?
If your going to debate, at least make an effort to ask logical questions based on my statements. I never said "ALL" creations look alike. I was saying that "SOME" creations have a similar design because they were created by the same designer. Atheists tend to point out these similarities as evidence to evolution. Really all that evolution is, is a faith based religious system based on scientific assumptions.
@SuperDeadplant It matters nothing to me that you call me names. There is no invisible man who lives in the sky. But there is definitely a thrice holy God that lives in the third heaven that created all of creation. You're the one that isn't very intelligent. It doesnt take a genius to know that a Supreme Being with intelligence that far exceeds our own created all of creation. So when you want to look at a d a look in the mirror.
@1954phyllis wow u are either really brainwashed or just plain stupid please oh wise one tell me how for one second u can believe that shit about an ivisible man who made everything please enlighten me as to how anyone with a triple digit iq can believe this garbage here explain me this and ill drop it all together noahs ark....the infinitely stupid story spewed from idiots please tell me how 1 man gathered 10 MILLION animals on a boat fed them and kept them from eating each other?
animals adapting to their environment to survive.....invisible man in the sky who created everything somehow even creating himself....yep that animal thing sounds stupid huh?......u people are fucking stupid if u fall for the greatest bullshit story ever told
@2:18 They did not build a man and a wife from a tooth. That is a newpaper picture that the newpaper made up. Stop lying Kent or you will end up in prison.
About 1,000 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was at the center of the universe. About 600 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was flat. About 500 years ago, scientists “knew” that bigger rocks fell faster than smaller rocks. About 5 years ago, scientists “knew” Pluto was a planet. Today, scientists “know” we came from apes. Ha, scientists don’t know shit.
"About 1,000 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was at the center of the universe. About 600 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was flat. "
Can you please name me a single scientists that "knew" that the earth was flat? Last I checked it was fucking creatards like you that thought the earth was flat.
@spidertraceur15 Yes, this is the difference between science and religion. Science actually seeks knowledge and truth, so of course it changes as new information becomes available. Religion is based on Bronze-Age myths which of course can never change. Religious knowledge is like a 5-year-old who never again changes an opinion nor gains new knowledge. Such a person would be profoundly retarded and an object of pity to those around. That is your unchanging religion. Education dissolves religion.
@spidertraceur15 The earth was always known to be a sphere by any civilization that was seafaring. In fact it was not believed to be flat 600 years ago since an Egyptian by the name of Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth around 2200 years ago!
The only people that thought the world was flat were uneducated people who listened to fairy stories and never asked a question in their life, there are a lot of those!
Most of what you typed there is actually incorrect btw!
nothing was added to create the other species, the preflood animals had all the necessary DNA for all the variations to come, just like Adam did for all mankind. through the LOSING of the information we get the different variations WITHIN a species/family/blah blah blah, but to reiterate what i have said all along they are still "HUMANS,DOGS,CATS etc.just like the created ORIGINALS were just variations. like making copies of copies still the same image just not quite as clear.u get it now i hope
@bigus Y'see the problem with that idea... is that in fact the opposite is actually observed... would you like me to start citing observations of it?
However I'd be interested in you finding a single organism where DNA was lost and the organism gained a new morphology or evolutionary advantage? There are in fact a few would you believe!
In other words, if what your saying is true there will certainly be no evidence to the contrary and I shouldn't therefore be able to supply any...right?
every organism that has fully adapted to fit its environment has over the course of breeding lost unnecessary dna information. creationism supports adaptation and survival of the fittest etc but not the change over billions of years from one animal to another completely different animal. also because a bear shares dna with a dog doesnt mean they are related or had a common ancestor. ei. the dna for certain fur types pigments etc etc. its fur and they both have it in different capacities.
@bigus Becasue a bear shares DNA with a Dog does in fact mean they are related... thats exactly what it 'does' mean thats what is meant by related. The level of that relationship is also observable even by you.
Plus didn't you argue in your previous post that all dogs were related? Well that means a Racoon Dog which is very closely related to both racoons and bears is also related to dogs!
Now as I said, don't take my word for it... ACT, Atemis etc are free to download, as are all genomes.
@bigus Next doesn't it specifically state in the bible that a Ravan and a Dove were on the ark? How come these two actaul species made onto the ark by 'species' but their several hundred relatives did not?
Anyway where is the fossil evidence for all this super evolution? You can't just say it...and make it true... there must be evidence for it.
Obviously you can't include fossils found in any rock you claim was a result of the flood. Just one would do... I'm sure you can name thousands.. lol
@spidertraceur15 As far as pluto goes 5 years ago it WAS a planet... because the word 'planet' had never actually been defined. With the discovery of planets outside the solar system a definition was required. There is now a definition for the term 'planet' and Pluto doesn't qualify under that definition, So its not a planet.
We didn't 'come from' apes... we 'are' apes! Unless you think you are a gazelle of some sort?
honestly im not sure why you keep repeating yourself because i already answered your questions. #1 one species of dog, that God created that became the others through the loss of information. thats one hypothesis and one that i think makes sense.i look at the information through the glasses of there is a God and the bible is true, where you look at things through the glasses of "there is no God" so how do i fit the information into that. #2 a raccoon dog is a dog, raccoon describes how it looks.
@bigus So there was just ONE species of dog... and they morphed, diversified, turned into, evolved...(whatever label you'd like to stick on it.) all the other forms... okay now we are getting somewhere. I needed you to confirm that.
Well okay... allow me to ask the obvious question then and pay close attention here... cos you can't obviously hold conflicting ideas as both being true at the same time!
If this were true.... then where is the transitional fossil evidence for this?
@bigus Basically heres the things you said which are actually observed to NOT be the case... through observation, testng and experiemtnation.
1. New data is added to chromosomes, and new chomosomes are added to individual species. Even in Humans... one such aborration is known as downs syndrome.
2. The racoon Dog contains a shares a chunk of DNA with both bears...and racoons...thus it behaves like a bear and even hibernates. Are bears also decendants of these pre flood dogs ancestors?
@bigus Further Racoon dog fossilised evidence has been found... So have Bear fossils, so have regular Wolves, Foxes etc...
How is this possible if they didn't exist until AFTER the flood?
Brown bears reach sexual maturity at an average of 6 years. So thats just 725 generations and there has been no noticable difference in recent history (2k years).
How is that possible?
Elephants reach sexual maturity at 9 to 12 years, just 483 generations! And Orcas at 15 years... just 290 generations!
@bigus y'see if your going to assert something is a factaul reality... then it will be absolutely ignored if you can neither provide evidence for it...and also explain why existing evidence gets in its way.
Now lots and lots and lots of evidence gets in its way. But lets ignore ALL of that and just look for a single animal that died 2k years ago that was half way between a dog and a fox?
There are millions who have lived of each in any species you like...evidence should be ubiquitous? no?
@MumblingMickey I said why are chimps not turning into humans right now if the evolution theory is true? Why would it just stop or "slow down" at some point "if" the evolution theory is true? Some one some where has to have captured it on film with so many record-able devices in the world. Oh and by the way starting out by calling me retarded is not a intellectual way to start a debate. Well have a nice life friend and God Bless you.
@chuckdogg343 "I said why are chimps not turning into humans right now if the evolution theory is true? "
I have no idea where you got the original idea this was possible let alone feasible.... So the answer is that that the question has nothing to do with anything in evolution...more science fiction or fantasy I think!
You may as well have asked how if 'time travel' is impossible then how come Michael J. Fox managed it.... Seriously...
@chuckdogg343 Do you know anything about evolution? Evolution takes millions of years to occur, how stupid could you be. How long do you think people been have on earth? Two hundred thousand years maybe? Compared to the universe our six thousand years of civilization is nothing. Even your own life time is nothing but a spec compared to the estimated thirteen billion years that the universe has been around. If you ask me a giant man in the sky is much harder to swallow than sub atomic particles
@chuckdogg343 Here is how it happens. There were apes in the trees and the same apes on the plains. Over time the ones in the trees got 5X stronger. The ones on the plains got 5X smarter. They can not mate and changed so they don’t look like the other. We call the apes in the trees Chimps and the apes who live on the plains Humans.
There is no reason for chimps to change into humans.
Someone found a tooth and thought it might be human. The second person to look at it correctly identified it as a pigs tooth. A news paper made a picture of bs.
The rest is made up by Kent.
There was one hoax, piltdown man. Now we have better fossils than the made up one.
Nah there are in fact lots of hoaxes... some people are determined to get fossils out of countries where the govt. of that country would stop it... so they say whatever they need to to get the fossils out of china, or iran...or whatever.. The Iranians would actaully destroy fossil evidence rather than admit it even exists.
But the second science examines the evidence the facts come to light. Its never the case that Kent Hovind unearths a hoax!
You atheists talk a lot of s***. I don't seem to ever hear any substantive arguments from you. It's a shame because I really enjoy shaping what I believe by hearing all the facts. Unfortunately all I hear from you is, "Kent is Hovind is a retard. Hope he dies of cancer. He is a worthless human being."
Honestly, I would really enjoy these boards much more if I actually ever heard refutations of what he claims rather than just name calling.
@ebeatworld@ebeatworld the refutations are easily found a million times over with a simple google search. repeating those ad nauseam would be ridiculous. and the fact that he's behind bars after being convicted on 58 counts of fraud should be a clue.
@MaximusRelaximus Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know. The answers to the whole universe are on Google. Thanks for clearing that up. This whole time I didn't realize that I shouldn't even need to debate and think critically about these issues. Google has solved all of that.
Please explain to me again how him being in jail has anything to do with refuting his arguments.
@ebeatworld no, genius, but, as anybody who is not profoundly retarded recognizes (sadly this obviously excludes you), a vast majority of all scholarly research is available through the internet, which happens to be made much more accessible with google. and since you can't even understand how hovind's conviction on dozens of counts of fraud could possibly impugn his credibility, you're obviously even less worthy of further waste of my time. enjoy your delusions.
@MaximusRelaximus OOOOoo.. No. Please don't hurt me with the "delusion" insult. You have come close to defeating me, sir. All you need now is the "flying spaghetti monster" argument, then I'm done. Ugh, those typical Dawkins insults are so annoying.
I didn't say I agreed with Hovind. My point was instead of maybe citing a reference to refute Hovind, all you Atheists do on EVERY board is talk shit. You're so freakin' whiny. It's annoying.
@ebeatworld Oh my, I used a word that Dawkins has used. Never mind that it's a very common word, and one that I've used to describe the religious since long before I'd ever heard of Dawkins. I should immediately alter my entire vocabulary so that I never use a single word that Dawkins has ever used. It will be difficult, but it's clearly the only way I can be sure I'm not "parroting" him.
@ebeatworld Any high school kid who has taken a science class can prove kent is full of BS. He says evolution says we came from chimps. He shows a picture of a chimp. That is not what evolution says, it says chimps and humans are both a kind of ape and share a common ancestor. dogs make dogs, apes make apes.
@gregrutz Actually, he says that evolution teaches we came from an ape-like ancestor. He knows what the theory says. He just disagrees with it.
Because a high school kid can recite what his textbook says, doesn't mean that proves Hovind wrong. When I was in high school and learned about evolution, I had some serious questions about it.
I have a friend who is a doctor in cell matrices. He has serious questions about it, as well.
Just because it's in a textbook, doesn't prove anything.
@gregrutz I didn't say we came from apes. And I'm not saying that's what evolutionists believe.
There are plenty of text books that disagree on a lot of issues. Just because one group of people decided on a certain one, it doesn't mean that one has all the answers.
@gregrutz Ugh. i didn't refute that that's what evolutionists believe. And DNA doesn't prove anything. Because we have common DNA is perfectly consistent with a common designer. No matter how humans or Chimps came to exist, I would expect them to have similar DNA since they have many visible similarities. That doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor. I know you think it does. But it doesn't convince me as well as many other skeptics of evoluion.
The fact is we can examine two batches of organisms which are allowed to multiply in controlled conditions... they DO diverge... so its not like it hasn't been observed.
It does however prove a few things.
1. DNA is not static it mutates and those mutations give rise to a new generation with modified DNA
2. Two batches kept in isolation share a common ancestor.
actually no it doesn't, in fact most geneticists are creationists or favor ID because genetically evolution is an impossibility. information is always lost in the forming of mutations, NEVER gained. and it always only occurs within a species. ie. wolves and dogs are all still canines with different mutations. no where is there ever a record of a dog changing into a horse for example. the only common ancestor humans could ever have was another human period.if any thing proves that its genetics.
name calling really makes you look intelligent. here is a little breakdown. the gene pool is closed and geneticists all know this.they know that in order for the species we have today the mutations would have all had to happen practically spontaneously because offspring is the only way to get variations,and only then within a species through the loss of information rather than the gaining of information.genetics itself points to ID and if you dont see how genes work you never become a geneticist
@NegativeBeef you simply don't get it bud. hopefully atleast you will be able to establish a larger vocabulary someday. when you find your missing link or when animals of different species can mate and produce offspring then maybe you will actually have a case. variations only occur within a species a.k.a the gene pool = closed until further notice. ive never seen any Cogs or Dats running around. there is simply no room for evolution beyond familial variations within the genetic code period.
@NegativeBeef i want to apologize to you for the insulting comments i made to you. i shouldnt have let my opinions cause me to be disrespectful or insulting. sorry.
@bigus Most genetisists are not in 'favor' of ID...and certainly not of creationism... I have no idea where you got that idea... but if you go off and spend 20 minutes on sites covering genetics you'll find out pretty quickly just how wrong you are!
Then again you already 'know' you are wrong there...
BTW... one species which is currently in existence cannot evolve into another totally unrelated species ... thats bullshit and who told you that this was ever stated as even remotely possible?
@bigus BTW...the 'its still a dog' argument destroys your own idea of floods outright if you take it to its final conclusion. Now I know you guys don't do 'reason' very well... but try to work that out...
@bigus well lets stat with the obvious... firstly replace the word 'dog' or canine... (which as I said is a classification made by people) with any family of animals you care to mention.
Canines is a good one. There are only about 100 species that fall into the classification. Right ...just in canines alone Noah needed how many pens? 100? And thats 'JUST' the canines. Just one family of mammals and 100 pens.
How big was this boat again? Or was there one boat for every 'family' or subcategory?
So the question is... if there are 100 species of dogs...or canids... then how big was this boat. By my calculation 1.5 million species of animals which are not microbial is a pretty big boat! Even if you put them in giant blender and 'poured' them in.. they wouldn't have fit!
Explain how this can be so?
btw very few species of dog can actually interbreed... they differ in the quantity of chromosomes... thus no breeding.
@MumblingMickey you assume that there would have been all 100 varieties of dogs preflood. similarly we wouldnt have started seeing the different races of man till after man separated and went off to say the Asias, and Africa and northern europe etc and developed his regional characteristics. i never said there was no room or ANY evolution or change within a race. just not an interbreed or deveopment into a completely different one. ei dogs change charicteristics but are STILL dogs.
@bigus Dogs are still dogs ehh? So the racoon Dog... is a dog? or is it a racoon? I'm sure your not going to say that only raccoons were on the ark and evolved into dogs... and indeed I know why you CAN'T say that... cos as you already said data is only ever lost... and racoons are not as advanced as dogs! are they?
Incidentally you are proof that data is increased...even during one lifetime. Unless you think you were MORE advanced as a baby, and embryo or a zygote than you are right now?
my point exactly once information is lost, its lost, not regained or added to for evolution to happen, which is why so many geneticists lean toward ID because for instance a dog would have had to have began as a dog or spontaneously changed from whatever he was before to being a dog etc. so to answer your question, your assumptions to begin with are false therefore the logical progression of your argument is also false. cont.
to see where ID theory is coming from or the reasoning behind it then you need to follow it all the way through using its own premesis, not filter it through your preconcieved evolutionary filter because the fork in the road happens at is the bible true or false.only one of these "theories" can be true.ID allows for the amount of evolution we see today, ei. variations within a species.to understand the ID argument you have to follow the assumptions from the beginning through to its logical con.
@bigus The main problem with ID as a set of assertions, hypothesis etc... is as follows..
In ten years of ID it has produced NO new information.. (yes I have read it...theres not a lot of it!) it has only a rehashed old information, much of that previously rejected.
The biology department of my university produced more data on this subject every month for the last decade that ID proponants did in the whole decade
You might like to rephrase that in the light of new information?
"The biology department of my university produced more data on this subject every month for the last decade that ID proponents did in the whole decade"
And in fact even quoting myself I can point to a private company who have produced more genomics research in 10 seconds than all of the ID proponents have combined during their entire combined lifetimes!
I can even tell you where to download software for genetic examination and YOU could produce more data than all of ID over the last decade!
or it could be that the reason there has been no new information for the ID argument is because its true and needs nothing new to be any truer. things tend to stop at truth.for those who believe the current information is enough, and for those who don't believe nothing short of the second coming of Christ will convince them but by then it will be too late.the more modern science discovers the more evolutionary theory becomes suspect already many of the old premesis have been done away with cont.
@bigus btw in explaining th dog hing you should probably do a bit of research... and not on creationist websites... they don't know... and the ones that do will ignore it!
The fact is that new information DOES enter chromosomes... and 'farm foxes' produced in their thousands provide ample evidence of that (as just one example)
And that just in the last 50 years!
New information has therefore been observed to enter new species... an under laboratory conditions AND in the natural world.
@bigus "or it could be that the reason there has been no new information for the ID argument is because its true and needs nothing new to be any truer."
six papers four of hem the work mostly of other biologists who DO NOT support ID is hardly a breakthrough... those papers were also all rejected.. with points explaining where they fly in the face of known facts which they ignore...
Please download all ID papers and read...
It has already been explained in great detail where ID is bullshit!
@MumblingMickey Next I'\ll be happy to enter anything you have to say about ID after you tell me if a dog is really a dog when its a racoon dog, or if it only qualifies if its the grey wolf ancestor that runs about your house?
If the raccoon dog is NOT a dog...then its ancestors were on the ark... if not then we have to assume some ancestor of all 100 species were on the ark and have since evolved into the many species of dog currently extant!
for example, how the black man is closest to the ape and how the white man is the furthest from the apelike ancestor. the evolutionary model needs more information because you need to prove so much more.unfortunately the more you learn the more you have to rewrite the old information because it was proven false.doesn't sound very solid to me,maybe that means it wasn't true to begin with? secondly,rejecting premesis that haven't been proven like, "is there a God" doesn't make it false. =/
@bigus "for example, how the black man is closest to the ape and how the white man is the furthest "
What are you talking about? Humans ARE apes...all humans black, white or purple!
And that not my opinion...its a fact... we share almost all of our DNA ...all of us... with our ape cousins... and it doesn't matter if your black or friggin orange!
Seriously I have no friggin clue where you got that from!
In fact when you are a member of a species... homo sapiens sapiens... and that subspecies has sub classes (which you would called races)
Then that alone tells you that there is a difference.
It does not tell you which is 'closest' to the original ancestor of black people, white people, to their long extinct ancestors cos we don't have any DNA for those creatures.
both black people and white people have DIVERGED in fact everyone outside africa is the divergence! Unless you are blind!
cont. So you have two distinct choice you can accept here..
Either A. Black people are more closely related to a common ancestor we all share... which make Caucasians and all other humans 'mutants'
or B. Both black and all other races a simply a linear divergence... in the same way no leaf on a tree is more closely related to the twig that spouted it!
Either way you notion is fucked sideways! Not that it made the slightest bit of sense to start with!
@bigus BTW science will ALWAYS need to prove more... if it had already proven everything there would be nothing left to investigate.... and that won't happen ever!
Now all this 'proven fals'e stuff is currently making new life, genetically modified food that feeds you, modified cotton that clothes you, medicines that cure you and even organisms that produce fuel that gets you from A to B.
I seriously can't see any greater proof than products on the shelves based on this process!
@MumblingMickey you know thats not what we are talking about here. we are talking about (and i am exaggerating) a cat becoming a dog over millions of years of evolution, or lightning striking the water and forming a single celled organism which became all life as we know it today. thats the part of evolution we are talking about not small scale evolution or changes over time within species or breed. again, its more likely that a bunch of bricks will eventually become a building over a mil yrs.
@bigus Is a raccoon dog a dog/canine? or a racoon? a racoon is not a dog... a dog is not a racoon... in fact a hyena is more closely related to a cat than any canine... so give over with the one species...another species... you have such a conundrum in front of you... Dog or Racoon... please choose!
Again a simple question...and again I find myself repeating the same question. Forget about everything else... try to concentrate on the question and stop going off on a tangent!
@bigus You also failed miserably to even read my posts...
If 'no new information' can enter a genome.. please explain where all the different TYPES of dog came from? isn't that NEW information?
Unless you think a racoon dog has the same quantity of genomes with the same information that a Grey wolf does...and both are classified as canine!
But they have different quantities of chromosomes...and different information in those chromosomes. They cannot interbreed, yet are both DOGS... explain?
God creates dog, dog gets on ark, language confusion at babel separates human and their animals, flocks etc.-->humans and animals move around the globe breeding and setting up camps in various parts of the world and become what they are today.as the information is lost creating the specific breeds eventually getting to the point they can no longer interbreed we are left with still just a "dog" only a specific type of dog. africans and eskimos are still humans just adapted to their env.
@bigus So new information WAS added to genes...despitemoving about or partying til the wee hours of the morning...or whatever... ?
Regardless of movement or anything were there 1.5 million pairs of animals on the ark or not? If not how was all the extra information added to create a discrepancy between such dogs as grey wolves and raccoon dogs?
obviously thats very basic, full of holes, and carries plenty of room for question and debate but basically thats what we believe occured. where evolution says. big bang single cell, sea animals, land animals, monkey, black man, latin man, blah blah blah to the superior white man,which makes hitlers plan of creating a super race not a bad plan at all its just evolution. BTW where to moral values come from? its kinda like your question about genetically enhanced food, which btw is worse for us.
@bigus You still have not answered the question...allow me to rephrase it... if adding EXTRA information is impossible... then there is a requirement to contain ALL species on the ark... if its not impossible then your argument falls apart...
SO to rephrase... were ALL the dogs on the ark... or did they evolve by adding new data to their genomes after the flood... it can't be both...
I'm sure we can agree to 'change the subject' to moralistic values AFTER you qualify that.
@bigus Do you really, really really believe there were only two original canines on the ark...which eliminates a requirement to contain 1.5 million animals, their food, their bedding etc.etc.? And then over he last 3k years formed all of the other dogs we see? Is that what you think?
Now thats the bones of it, its really simple... the answer can only be yes or no.
But feel free to elaborate on the yes or no... be my guest!
Hitler knew jack shit about the process of evolution btw.
@bigus y'know as Scott D. Weitzenhoffer once commented.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Please try very hard to stick to the subject. I know its hard cos you are about to face a pretty hard question but thats the point!
So, 'were their 100 species of Dog on the ark... or only one which later evolved into the others?'
to see where ID theory is coming from or the reasoning behind it then you need to follow it all the way through using its own premise"
I read it, all of it, and after reading other works, not all of them, but a lot. I therefore have a comparison. ID makes no sense in the light of real biological advances. I'm not qualified to make that assertion professionally though. However it does make assertions which are totally uncorroborated and which are mostly bogus.
actually, if the flood scenerio is true you would only need 2 preflood canines.the loss of information in the creating of breeds and regional packs would have occurred after the flood as people and animals broke off and went their separate ways leaving the originals behind. the 7 of every clean animal means that 5 of every 7 clean animal were used for meat.dogs are not simply carnivors that ONLY eat meat they eat pretty much everything.but they would have had plenty of meat all the same.
"actually, if the flood scenerio is true you would only need 2 preflood canines"
Thats called evolution...except at an impossibly accelerated rate. Racoon dogs and red foxes and grey wolves are SO different that this cannot have happened unless it was actually visible to the observers.
Its certainly not mentioned anywhere and surely someone would have noticed it in the last 100 years? It flies in the fact of what you have been told.
@bigus So what you are saying by 'pre flood canines' is that ther was an animal... which was NOT a walrus...and WAS NOT a giant Panda... but that the giant Panda and the Walrus share this animal as a common ancestor...
Well how is this possible if data is only ever lost....? Since the Giant Pandas closest living relative is the Walrus! NOT the brown bear... not the black bear... the Walrus!
You can apply that to any canine species you like too!
@ebeatworld Well I'm a Christian evolutionist and I think Hovind truly is nuts. His argument against Neanderthals and Paleontology is that scientists willingly try to fool the world? Modern paleontology isn't a hoax and creationists run around saying "carbon dating is vastly inaccurate look at our tests that show it is" but never get their testing reviewed by scientific institutions so no wonder we don't listen. Explaining cavemen like this is honestly something a 4 year old could make up.
there is really no such thing as a christian evolutionist.real christians believe what the bible says and let the bible interpret itself. the bible claims to be the word of God so you believe it or you don't. real christians believe in Christ and therefore would believe the Bible as His inspired word and not try to fit Darwins word into Gods word which contradicts evolution. you simply can't believe both and if you claim to i question your understanding of the bible and christianity.
no im not saying i can judge where your heart is.but the christ of the bible is the christ of creation aswell as the christ the savior in the new testiment you kinda have to believe both since they go hand in hand.its the difference between thinking Christ was just a good man or prophet from understanding that he is also the Sovereign God of the universe and creation.a prophet cant save us only God could have.why would you love christ if he didnt have the power to save? what do you base it on?
@bigus Of course I believe he's the God of the Universe and the ONLY way to the Father. I have been a Christian for some time now; I attend a conservative Anglican church that believes in the tenants of Scripture and the Creeds of the Early Church. I cannot however, accept the fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of Scripture brought about by the Reformation and Catholic struggles. If you'll remember the first one to doubt the 7 literal days of creation was St Augustine.
i dont doubt that st augustine questioned it. catholics don't take the bible literally for the most part and typically value tradition over the word. the catecism even says that the church has authority over the scriptures, and while i disagree with catholocism, i can see that you would definately have questions if you are immersed in that system. im sorry if i insulted you, i didnt mean to i just didnt understand how you could believe a little bit here and there but not all of it.see Rev.13&17
@ebeatworld Obviously your only reading the bits you want to... or remembering the bits you want to...
1. Kent hovind is not qualified to make comments on anything since he's personally uneucated and patently not to be trusted.
2. At one point he shows the diagram for the formation of a black hole and claims its one for the start of the universe... and printed ON that slide is 'formation of a black hole' ... So he deliberately lies.
Further.. despite his protestations that 'morality' is learned from the bible... he himself is imprisoned for stealing YOUR MONEY!
next he never gave a red cent to any charity that he himself did not have full control of! Despite claiming he did...and despite telling everyone to give to him!
And to top that...while hes saying one thing and doing another.. real altruists are alive an well... some have donated their entire fortunes...and at the top of that list are the irreligious!
@ebeatworld So hovind...whichever way you spin it is guilty of 'evil' (which I claim does not exist...but you think does)
And those that are supposedly evil...are actaully handing their entire wealth away to charity?
He's an outright liar, peddling buillshit to garner as much cash as he can. At one point he even claimed that a 'drop' of water could be spread thin enough to cover the earth... which is impossible, but he didn't bother to find out if that was true...and he didn't care!
This man ought to be highly ashamed of himself, and I'm not even talking about his beliefs on creation. You present material of such a profound and serious nature as to invoke the Bible verse concerning the millstone and being cast into the sea, and with your same breath you make an insensitive and highly inappropriate racial remark about a Middle Easterner hiding in a 7-Eleven (I'm NOT defending Osama by ANY MEANS). This is why people dismiss Christians as quacks and hypocrites.
@agbadu its not racial its just example that hes giving... i dont agree wit evoulution and i was a none beliver so imagine that a none beliver now believes in GOD! a 17 year old.... nd the fact is the public school text books leave out a lot of information. im in 10th grade learing about ww2 which is middle school or 9th grade work.
Just cussing, swearing, jeering, & gutter-mouthing Kent Hovind is not gonna make u guys the "right, & win the argument." If all u say is just "He's an idiot, he's a liar", do u KNOW that, or do u THINK that? Just saying stuff like that, over & over & over again, is not gonna get u ANYWHERE.
Genesis is fiction:Most bible colleges teach it`s allegory:As an example, there are 106 schools in the Christian College Coalition. Of those 106 only 5 teach a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation or that the flood was global & the flood prevailed the highest peak
yea because no one in earths history was ever framed or wrongfully imprisoned. but thats really not the point. truth is truth no matter where it comes from.lets say you are right that he is guilty of everything would that make the things he says untrue just because he is guilty?should we only believe people that have never done anything wrong?show me someone who isn't guilty of something?i guess no one can believe anyone.darwin was plagued with doubts about his own theory yet its taught as fact.
"Only at first, until the evidence trumped his religion"-actually it was on his death bed and he was plagued with doubts until deaths peaceful embrace took him."I see that you have no interest in the teaching of Jesus" - from what do you draw this conclusion. also what makes you think kent hovind is the one who changed my mind or caused me to believe in his theories?there are hosts of other scientists that make good arguments for creationism.i believe in creation because of the bible not kent.
@bigus You believe in creation because of the Bible? How laughable. Tell me, which version of creation do you prefer, the chapter 1 or the chapter 2 version? It's inspiring to learn that you believe in unicorns and talking animals, a flat earth, and a geocentric solar orbit. You are unconcerned about the many contradictions in the Bible, the faked "fulfillments" of prophecy, the unfulfilled prophecy, and the fact that Xians have ZERO evidence for their god and their religion? How sad.
The basic problem is that the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
@Imaginefree69 creationists are actually very learned especially the ones who were once evolutionist who took their learning even further and saw that the theory of evolution had too many problems and moved on to the opinion that many of lifes complexities point to intelligent design because evolution would be an impossibility.evolutionists used to say change required billions of years now they are saying changes must have occured suddenly in order for them to have happened. waffle/backpedal hmm
@bigus "creationists are actually very learned " I'm surre you would like to think so. But reading Chick tracts and listening to convicts does not constitute a significant education. " the ones who were once evolutionist" I doubt that there are many of these. The usual progress is that Creationists who get an education cease to be Creationists. Just as many Christians who actually read the Bible then become atheists. Education dissolves religion.
It's common knowledge that nothing offensive is true. That's why serial killers and pedophiles don't exist. That's also why nobody ever poop, the toilet is just there to show we are sophisticated.
RELIGION isn't answering that question,SCIENCE is.the bible makes the claim, scientists like kent(he isn't the only one), use SCIENCE to show how living to 900 COULD have been possible, they are THEORIES and have to be because NO ONE was there.his theory's are based on biblical REFERENCE and MODERN SCIENCE to show how it COULD have been possible.you are acting like he is saying saying that this is EXACTLY what happened. i keep hearing him say.."i believe that this is what the bible is saying."
@bigus When will religion explain the Bible stories about unicorns and talking animals? When will it explain the many contradictions in the Bible? Or the lack of historical and archaeological evidence for the Exodus, or the Massacre of the Innocents, or even of the life of Jesus? When will religion explain the unfulfilled predictions and promises of the Bible? Or the fraudulent "fulfillments" invented in the Bible? No, religion can never look science in the face. Evidence trumps fairy tales.
We are not "ignorant," in fact we are quite smart. We don't just give into what we are told just because someone says it's true. We question things! Where is your evidence of God? I'm sorry, but we don't take story books seriously. Go out and rethink your life. And good job finding evidence against us (if you even call that evidence) would you like us to find evidence against your god?
@BIllClintonTheTroll We are not "ignorant" in fact we are quite smart. We don't just give into what we are told just because someone says it's true. EXACTLY! We don't either. There is no evidence for God, stupid comment, if there was you wouldn't be posting your comment. Just like there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Go out and re think your life and good job finding evidence against us (if you call that evidence).
have you questioned the fact that you may be wrong? i would actually like you to find evidence that there is no God. evolutionists have no more proof about anything just more questions based on new findings about poor, failed early hypothesis. the creationist stance never changes...evolutionists continue to waffle and rephrase because real science continues to disprove it so they have to form new hypothesis to try and make things "fit" its like puting tape on a house that continues to fall apart
evolution isn't a fact thats why its called the theory of evolution. the sad thing is that its taught like a fact so ppl grow up being brainwashed from an early age to think it is.if you wanted unbiased science like it should be then children should be taught what each theory says and allowed to decide for themselves.actually i think evolution has a big conflict with God.IF there was a God who could create why would there be the need for billions of years of evolution when he could just create?
@bigus " 6 hours ago evolution isn't a fact thats why its called the theory of evolution. " You are sadly mistaken, and this statement of yours demonstrates your lack of education. Why do you imagine that you can refute a science of which you are as ignorant as Hovind? At least learn what science means by the word "theory." Just Google "Scientific theory" and read the results. That alone will triple your scientific knowledge.
This has been flagged as spam show
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.needgod.com
standingontruth1 4 months ago
creation vs evolution . freeforums. org
purdyr 9 months ago
Actually even according to secular scientists they Lucy was far more apelike than human. I don't believe humans have a common ancester with the great apes but why couldn't humans been more than one species. If many species can make up what is called a kind with other animals why can't humans have been more than one species that is not unreasonable.
RJL738 9 months ago
Not only were neanderthals a different species from us but we interbrede with them they barried their dead with offerings and wore a form of makeup, were adaptive and looked very similar to us, Heidelburgensis burried their dead with offerings too. Even with this not only are we the same species we don't even take up all the diversity of a subspecies. Cro-magnons are actually our species not any sort of link.
RJL738 9 months ago
The whole ape to man thing refers to common ancestry and a tree of hominids. I'm not sure if Hom Erectus was a species of human but humans were once more than ocne species, we have up to 11 percent of our DNA that is "not human" not including maybe more if the appropriate hominin could be found. Homo Antecesser, Homo Steinheimensis, Homo Cepranensis and Homo Heidelburgensis or just some of the compliment of humans that have walked the Earth.
RJL738 9 months ago
I love the from 'ape to Bill' evolution time table. Lol.!!!
As a black man I can never be convinced that my ancestors are apes or ape like creatures. Never!!!
tarheelred28390 9 months ago
What Flood?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This guy's so full of shit it puts a crackhouse toilet to shame.
Kemonokami 1 year ago
@Kemonokami Oh are you speaking of yourself.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis
Oh really? "Chimps stay Chimps?" The only reason why you hate evolution is because you have absolutely no understanding of it. Animals don't just transform spontaneously, parents pass down the genes they have and the skills they've inherited onto future generations, and over time, such skills become refined enough to become physical mutations.
Kemonokami 1 year ago
@Kemonokami You evolutionists are so funny. To actually think that you evolved from an ape is ludicrious.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis
Thanks for proving my point. Come on, look at the similarities between humans and apes! The nose, the mouth, fingernails, body type, DNA structure...This has been proven in a lab time and time and time again, and yet you throw all of that research and progress out the window in favor of the myths of a bronze age civilization.
Typical.
Kemonokami 1 year ago
@Kemonokami
you say "similarities between humans and apes" proves evolution. do you not consider the fact that their is similar design because apes and humans have the same designer?
AbijahMichael 11 months ago
@AbijahMichael
And if what you're saying is true, then does that mean that Capybaras and Horseshoe Crabs look alike if they're made by God?
Kemonokami 11 months ago
@Kemonokami
If your going to debate, at least make an effort to ask logical questions based on my statements. I never said "ALL" creations look alike. I was saying that "SOME" creations have a similar design because they were created by the same designer. Atheists tend to point out these similarities as evidence to evolution. Really all that evolution is, is a faith based religious system based on scientific assumptions.
AbijahMichael 11 months ago
@1954phyllis yeah cuz an invisible man who lives in the sky who created u is waaaaaaaaaay more logical.....DUMBASS
SuperDeadplant 1 year ago
@SuperDeadplant It matters nothing to me that you call me names. There is no invisible man who lives in the sky. But there is definitely a thrice holy God that lives in the third heaven that created all of creation. You're the one that isn't very intelligent. It doesnt take a genius to know that a Supreme Being with intelligence that far exceeds our own created all of creation. So when you want to look at a d a look in the mirror.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis wow u are either really brainwashed or just plain stupid please oh wise one tell me how for one second u can believe that shit about an ivisible man who made everything please enlighten me as to how anyone with a triple digit iq can believe this garbage here explain me this and ill drop it all together noahs ark....the infinitely stupid story spewed from idiots please tell me how 1 man gathered 10 MILLION animals on a boat fed them and kept them from eating each other?
SuperDeadplant 1 year ago
animals adapting to their environment to survive.....invisible man in the sky who created everything somehow even creating himself....yep that animal thing sounds stupid huh?......u people are fucking stupid if u fall for the greatest bullshit story ever told
SuperDeadplant 1 year ago
@2:18 They did not build a man and a wife from a tooth. That is a newpaper picture that the newpaper made up. Stop lying Kent or you will end up in prison.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
imasagunasekara 1 year ago
Living to be 900 years hahahaha.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 year ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence
they matured slower back then - they hardly got wrinkled or old.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
Uggh.
billygutter01 1 year ago
Kent Hovind= tool
ShroomSamich 1 year ago
@ShroomSamich True.......a tool of God! :)
BeautifulllColours 1 year ago
About 1,000 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was at the center of the universe. About 600 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was flat. About 500 years ago, scientists “knew” that bigger rocks fell faster than smaller rocks. About 5 years ago, scientists “knew” Pluto was a planet. Today, scientists “know” we came from apes. Ha, scientists don’t know shit.
spidertraceur15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spidertraceur15
"About 1,000 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was at the center of the universe. About 600 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was flat. "
Can you please name me a single scientists that "knew" that the earth was flat? Last I checked it was fucking creatards like you that thought the earth was flat.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@spidertraceur15 The earth was always known to be a sphere by any civilization that was seafaring. In fact it was not believed to be flat 600 years ago since an Egyptian by the name of Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth around 2200 years ago!
The only people that thought the world was flat were uneducated people who listened to fairy stories and never asked a question in their life, there are a lot of those!
Most of what you typed there is actually incorrect btw!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
nothing was added to create the other species, the preflood animals had all the necessary DNA for all the variations to come, just like Adam did for all mankind. through the LOSING of the information we get the different variations WITHIN a species/family/blah blah blah, but to reiterate what i have said all along they are still "HUMANS,DOGS,CATS etc.just like the created ORIGINALS were just variations. like making copies of copies still the same image just not quite as clear.u get it now i hope
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Y'see the problem with that idea... is that in fact the opposite is actually observed... would you like me to start citing observations of it?
However I'd be interested in you finding a single organism where DNA was lost and the organism gained a new morphology or evolutionary advantage? There are in fact a few would you believe!
In other words, if what your saying is true there will certainly be no evidence to the contrary and I shouldn't therefore be able to supply any...right?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
every organism that has fully adapted to fit its environment has over the course of breeding lost unnecessary dna information. creationism supports adaptation and survival of the fittest etc but not the change over billions of years from one animal to another completely different animal. also because a bear shares dna with a dog doesnt mean they are related or had a common ancestor. ei. the dna for certain fur types pigments etc etc. its fur and they both have it in different capacities.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Becasue a bear shares DNA with a Dog does in fact mean they are related... thats exactly what it 'does' mean thats what is meant by related. The level of that relationship is also observable even by you.
Plus didn't you argue in your previous post that all dogs were related? Well that means a Racoon Dog which is very closely related to both racoons and bears is also related to dogs!
Now as I said, don't take my word for it... ACT, Atemis etc are free to download, as are all genomes.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus But you do support 'hyper' evolution which means that two canines were supposedly on that ark but there were two pigs and two camels?
Well pigs and camels belong to the clasfication 'artiodactyla' in the same way that Dogs and Foxs belong to the family 'Canidae' (canine)
So if dogs and foxes get to have just two ancestors we cn only assume you think Camels and pigs equally have a common ancestor?
And aren't they totally different species? Unless you think pigs and camels can breed?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus Next doesn't it specifically state in the bible that a Ravan and a Dove were on the ark? How come these two actaul species made onto the ark by 'species' but their several hundred relatives did not?
Anyway where is the fossil evidence for all this super evolution? You can't just say it...and make it true... there must be evidence for it.
Obviously you can't include fossils found in any rock you claim was a result of the flood. Just one would do... I'm sure you can name thousands.. lol
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@spidertraceur15 As far as pluto goes 5 years ago it WAS a planet... because the word 'planet' had never actually been defined. With the discovery of planets outside the solar system a definition was required. There is now a definition for the term 'planet' and Pluto doesn't qualify under that definition, So its not a planet.
We didn't 'come from' apes... we 'are' apes! Unless you think you are a gazelle of some sort?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
Why don't we see chimps turning into humans today? If evolution is true? Why would it stop?
chuckdogg343 1 year ago 4
@chuckdogg343 what? how retarded is that?... exactly where in biology is it assrted this is possible?
So I'll agree with you... it is impossible for humans to morph, turn into...or even slowly evolve into chimps!
And evolution hasn't stopped...as a quick trip to your doctor for this years flu shot explains!
Seriously why are you making stupid comments?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
honestly im not sure why you keep repeating yourself because i already answered your questions. #1 one species of dog, that God created that became the others through the loss of information. thats one hypothesis and one that i think makes sense.i look at the information through the glasses of there is a God and the bible is true, where you look at things through the glasses of "there is no God" so how do i fit the information into that. #2 a raccoon dog is a dog, raccoon describes how it looks.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus So there was just ONE species of dog... and they morphed, diversified, turned into, evolved...(whatever label you'd like to stick on it.) all the other forms... okay now we are getting somewhere. I needed you to confirm that.
Well okay... allow me to ask the obvious question then and pay close attention here... cos you can't obviously hold conflicting ideas as both being true at the same time!
If this were true.... then where is the transitional fossil evidence for this?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus Basically heres the things you said which are actually observed to NOT be the case... through observation, testng and experiemtnation.
1. New data is added to chromosomes, and new chomosomes are added to individual species. Even in Humans... one such aborration is known as downs syndrome.
2. The racoon Dog contains a shares a chunk of DNA with both bears...and racoons...thus it behaves like a bear and even hibernates. Are bears also decendants of these pre flood dogs ancestors?
3.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus Further Racoon dog fossilised evidence has been found... So have Bear fossils, so have regular Wolves, Foxes etc...
How is this possible if they didn't exist until AFTER the flood?
Brown bears reach sexual maturity at an average of 6 years. So thats just 725 generations and there has been no noticable difference in recent history (2k years).
How is that possible?
Elephants reach sexual maturity at 9 to 12 years, just 483 generations! And Orcas at 15 years... just 290 generations!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus y'see if your going to assert something is a factaul reality... then it will be absolutely ignored if you can neither provide evidence for it...and also explain why existing evidence gets in its way.
Now lots and lots and lots of evidence gets in its way. But lets ignore ALL of that and just look for a single animal that died 2k years ago that was half way between a dog and a fox?
There are millions who have lived of each in any species you like...evidence should be ubiquitous? no?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey I said why are chimps not turning into humans right now if the evolution theory is true? Why would it just stop or "slow down" at some point "if" the evolution theory is true? Some one some where has to have captured it on film with so many record-able devices in the world. Oh and by the way starting out by calling me retarded is not a intellectual way to start a debate. Well have a nice life friend and God Bless you.
chuckdogg343 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chuckdogg343 "I said why are chimps not turning into humans right now if the evolution theory is true? "
I have no idea where you got the original idea this was possible let alone feasible.... So the answer is that that the question has nothing to do with anything in evolution...more science fiction or fantasy I think!
You may as well have asked how if 'time travel' is impossible then how come Michael J. Fox managed it.... Seriously...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@chuckdogg343 Do you know anything about evolution? Evolution takes millions of years to occur, how stupid could you be. How long do you think people been have on earth? Two hundred thousand years maybe? Compared to the universe our six thousand years of civilization is nothing. Even your own life time is nothing but a spec compared to the estimated thirteen billion years that the universe has been around. If you ask me a giant man in the sky is much harder to swallow than sub atomic particles
Benns1991 1 year ago 2
@chuckdogg343 Here is how it happens. There were apes in the trees and the same apes on the plains. Over time the ones in the trees got 5X stronger. The ones on the plains got 5X smarter. They can not mate and changed so they don’t look like the other. We call the apes in the trees Chimps and the apes who live on the plains Humans.
There is no reason for chimps to change into humans.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No chimps stay chimps.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis No, chimps stay apes. Just like humans are still apes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Thank God Kent is in jail. If we could only stop his lies.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Someone found a tooth and thought it might be human. The second person to look at it correctly identified it as a pigs tooth. A news paper made a picture of bs.
The rest is made up by Kent.
There was one hoax, piltdown man. Now we have better fossils than the made up one.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Nah there are in fact lots of hoaxes... some people are determined to get fossils out of countries where the govt. of that country would stop it... so they say whatever they need to to get the fossils out of china, or iran...or whatever.. The Iranians would actaully destroy fossil evidence rather than admit it even exists.
But the second science examines the evidence the facts come to light. Its never the case that Kent Hovind unearths a hoax!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
They have 600 Neanderthals now, cave men. Even some DNA.
It proves we did not evolve from them. They were a different kind of human.
We interbreed with them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I like how he's bitching about people getting grants to do research.
When in reality Churches all over the world are stealing money to spread their bullshit propaganda.
What a hypocrite.
062389 1 year ago
You atheists talk a lot of s***. I don't seem to ever hear any substantive arguments from you. It's a shame because I really enjoy shaping what I believe by hearing all the facts. Unfortunately all I hear from you is, "Kent is Hovind is a retard. Hope he dies of cancer. He is a worthless human being."
Honestly, I would really enjoy these boards much more if I actually ever heard refutations of what he claims rather than just name calling.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld @ebeatworld the refutations are easily found a million times over with a simple google search. repeating those ad nauseam would be ridiculous. and the fact that he's behind bars after being convicted on 58 counts of fraud should be a clue.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
@MaximusRelaximus Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know. The answers to the whole universe are on Google. Thanks for clearing that up. This whole time I didn't realize that I shouldn't even need to debate and think critically about these issues. Google has solved all of that.
Please explain to me again how him being in jail has anything to do with refuting his arguments.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld no, genius, but, as anybody who is not profoundly retarded recognizes (sadly this obviously excludes you), a vast majority of all scholarly research is available through the internet, which happens to be made much more accessible with google. and since you can't even understand how hovind's conviction on dozens of counts of fraud could possibly impugn his credibility, you're obviously even less worthy of further waste of my time. enjoy your delusions.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
@MaximusRelaximus OOOOoo.. No. Please don't hurt me with the "delusion" insult. You have come close to defeating me, sir. All you need now is the "flying spaghetti monster" argument, then I'm done. Ugh, those typical Dawkins insults are so annoying.
I didn't say I agreed with Hovind. My point was instead of maybe citing a reference to refute Hovind, all you Atheists do on EVERY board is talk shit. You're so freakin' whiny. It's annoying.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Oh my, I used a word that Dawkins has used. Never mind that it's a very common word, and one that I've used to describe the religious since long before I'd ever heard of Dawkins. I should immediately alter my entire vocabulary so that I never use a single word that Dawkins has ever used. It will be difficult, but it's clearly the only way I can be sure I'm not "parroting" him.
MaximusRelaximus 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Any high school kid who has taken a science class can prove kent is full of BS. He says evolution says we came from chimps. He shows a picture of a chimp. That is not what evolution says, it says chimps and humans are both a kind of ape and share a common ancestor. dogs make dogs, apes make apes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Actually, he says that evolution teaches we came from an ape-like ancestor. He knows what the theory says. He just disagrees with it.
Because a high school kid can recite what his textbook says, doesn't mean that proves Hovind wrong. When I was in high school and learned about evolution, I had some serious questions about it.
I have a friend who is a doctor in cell matrices. He has serious questions about it, as well.
Just because it's in a textbook, doesn't prove anything.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld No, being in text books does mean something. What you and your friend should do is study it if you have questions.
We didn't come form apes, we are a kind of ape/primate/mammal/tetrapod/etc.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I didn't say we came from apes. And I'm not saying that's what evolutionists believe.
There are plenty of text books that disagree on a lot of issues. Just because one group of people decided on a certain one, it doesn't mean that one has all the answers.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld No, evolutionists don't say we came from modern apes.
Humans are classified as APE / primate / mammal / tetraprod/ etc.
We share a common ancestor with Chimps, another kind of Ape.
DNA proves it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Ugh. i didn't refute that that's what evolutionists believe. And DNA doesn't prove anything. Because we have common DNA is perfectly consistent with a common designer. No matter how humans or Chimps came to exist, I would expect them to have similar DNA since they have many visible similarities. That doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor. I know you think it does. But it doesn't convince me as well as many other skeptics of evoluion.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld The fact that we have 98% the same DNA as a chimp is not what proves evolution happened.
DNA has markers, these markers show a family tree. That family tree matches all the other trees of life, and the evolutionary tree of life.
They can trace out path out of Africa.
It all fits.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ebeatworld
"That doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor."
The fact is we can examine two batches of organisms which are allowed to multiply in controlled conditions... they DO diverge... so its not like it hasn't been observed.
It does however prove a few things.
1. DNA is not static it mutates and those mutations give rise to a new generation with modified DNA
2. Two batches kept in isolation share a common ancestor.
ergo, you are wrong
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
actually no it doesn't, in fact most geneticists are creationists or favor ID because genetically evolution is an impossibility. information is always lost in the forming of mutations, NEVER gained. and it always only occurs within a species. ie. wolves and dogs are all still canines with different mutations. no where is there ever a record of a dog changing into a horse for example. the only common ancestor humans could ever have was another human period.if any thing proves that its genetics.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus watch dogs don't make non dogs on my home page
Dogs will always be dogs, in a million years if they could fly, they would still be dogs,
the ancestors of humans were primates, humans are primates.
watch turns out we really are monkeys
gregrutz 1 year ago
@bigus
most geneticists are creationists? really??? why don't you show us that you fucking turdlet.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
name calling really makes you look intelligent. here is a little breakdown. the gene pool is closed and geneticists all know this.they know that in order for the species we have today the mutations would have all had to happen practically spontaneously because offspring is the only way to get variations,and only then within a species through the loss of information rather than the gaining of information.genetics itself points to ID and if you dont see how genes work you never become a geneticist
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus
"the gene pool is closed and geneticists all know this"
99% of geneticist accept evolution. Looks like your god forgot to give you a brain.
Dumb fuck.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
@NegativeBeef you simply don't get it bud. hopefully atleast you will be able to establish a larger vocabulary someday. when you find your missing link or when animals of different species can mate and produce offspring then maybe you will actually have a case. variations only occur within a species a.k.a the gene pool = closed until further notice. ive never seen any Cogs or Dats running around. there is simply no room for evolution beyond familial variations within the genetic code period.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus
"you simply don't get it bud.'
Yeah I'm not the one going against established science. Maybe one day you'll get it that the earth ain't flat.
Fucking subhuman.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
@NegativeBeef i want to apologize to you for the insulting comments i made to you. i shouldnt have let my opinions cause me to be disrespectful or insulting. sorry.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Most genetisists are not in 'favor' of ID...and certainly not of creationism... I have no idea where you got that idea... but if you go off and spend 20 minutes on sites covering genetics you'll find out pretty quickly just how wrong you are!
Then again you already 'know' you are wrong there...
BTW... one species which is currently in existence cannot evolve into another totally unrelated species ... thats bullshit and who told you that this was ever stated as even remotely possible?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus BTW...the 'its still a dog' argument destroys your own idea of floods outright if you take it to its final conclusion. Now I know you guys don't do 'reason' very well... but try to work that out...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey enlighten me on how the fact that all canines are related and still canines destroys the notion of a flood.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus well lets stat with the obvious... firstly replace the word 'dog' or canine... (which as I said is a classification made by people) with any family of animals you care to mention.
Canines is a good one. There are only about 100 species that fall into the classification. Right ...just in canines alone Noah needed how many pens? 100? And thats 'JUST' the canines. Just one family of mammals and 100 pens.
How big was this boat again? Or was there one boat for every 'family' or subcategory?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
CONT.
So the question is... if there are 100 species of dogs...or canids... then how big was this boat. By my calculation 1.5 million species of animals which are not microbial is a pretty big boat! Even if you put them in giant blender and 'poured' them in.. they wouldn't have fit!
Explain how this can be so?
btw very few species of dog can actually interbreed... they differ in the quantity of chromosomes... thus no breeding.
eg.
African wild dog 78 chromosomes
Red Fox 36 Chromosomes
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey you assume that there would have been all 100 varieties of dogs preflood. similarly we wouldnt have started seeing the different races of man till after man separated and went off to say the Asias, and Africa and northern europe etc and developed his regional characteristics. i never said there was no room or ANY evolution or change within a race. just not an interbreed or deveopment into a completely different one. ei dogs change charicteristics but are STILL dogs.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Dogs are still dogs ehh? So the racoon Dog... is a dog? or is it a racoon? I'm sure your not going to say that only raccoons were on the ark and evolved into dogs... and indeed I know why you CAN'T say that... cos as you already said data is only ever lost... and racoons are not as advanced as dogs! are they?
Incidentally you are proof that data is increased...even during one lifetime. Unless you think you were MORE advanced as a baby, and embryo or a zygote than you are right now?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
my point exactly once information is lost, its lost, not regained or added to for evolution to happen, which is why so many geneticists lean toward ID because for instance a dog would have had to have began as a dog or spontaneously changed from whatever he was before to being a dog etc. so to answer your question, your assumptions to begin with are false therefore the logical progression of your argument is also false. cont.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus You have no clue in general when you enter ebates on youtube who or what you are talkig to ...do you?
Pleae go away and read just 20 minutes of genentics, genomics and biology science sites and scientific papers.
I can personally guarantee that not one of them will support your ideas...
Give me an idea of what volume of genetic scienc research you think is on your side? 1%? 2%? 20%? what level?
Let me give you a clue... its less than .0001% and by a lot!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
to see where ID theory is coming from or the reasoning behind it then you need to follow it all the way through using its own premesis, not filter it through your preconcieved evolutionary filter because the fork in the road happens at is the bible true or false.only one of these "theories" can be true.ID allows for the amount of evolution we see today, ei. variations within a species.to understand the ID argument you have to follow the assumptions from the beginning through to its logical con.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus The main problem with ID as a set of assertions, hypothesis etc... is as follows..
In ten years of ID it has produced NO new information.. (yes I have read it...theres not a lot of it!) it has only a rehashed old information, much of that previously rejected.
The biology department of my university produced more data on this subject every month for the last decade that ID proponants did in the whole decade
You might like to rephrase that in the light of new information?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
"The biology department of my university produced more data on this subject every month for the last decade that ID proponents did in the whole decade"
And in fact even quoting myself I can point to a private company who have produced more genomics research in 10 seconds than all of the ID proponents have combined during their entire combined lifetimes!
I can even tell you where to download software for genetic examination and YOU could produce more data than all of ID over the last decade!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
or it could be that the reason there has been no new information for the ID argument is because its true and needs nothing new to be any truer. things tend to stop at truth.for those who believe the current information is enough, and for those who don't believe nothing short of the second coming of Christ will convince them but by then it will be too late.the more modern science discovers the more evolutionary theory becomes suspect already many of the old premesis have been done away with cont.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus btw in explaining th dog hing you should probably do a bit of research... and not on creationist websites... they don't know... and the ones that do will ignore it!
The fact is that new information DOES enter chromosomes... and 'farm foxes' produced in their thousands provide ample evidence of that (as just one example)
And that just in the last 50 years!
New information has therefore been observed to enter new species... an under laboratory conditions AND in the natural world.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus "or it could be that the reason there has been no new information for the ID argument is because its true and needs nothing new to be any truer."
six papers four of hem the work mostly of other biologists who DO NOT support ID is hardly a breakthrough... those papers were also all rejected.. with points explaining where they fly in the face of known facts which they ignore...
Please download all ID papers and read...
It has already been explained in great detail where ID is bullshit!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Next I'\ll be happy to enter anything you have to say about ID after you tell me if a dog is really a dog when its a racoon dog, or if it only qualifies if its the grey wolf ancestor that runs about your house?
If the raccoon dog is NOT a dog...then its ancestors were on the ark... if not then we have to assume some ancestor of all 100 species were on the ark and have since evolved into the many species of dog currently extant!
Again its choice time... and simple choices too!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
for example, how the black man is closest to the ape and how the white man is the furthest from the apelike ancestor. the evolutionary model needs more information because you need to prove so much more.unfortunately the more you learn the more you have to rewrite the old information because it was proven false.doesn't sound very solid to me,maybe that means it wasn't true to begin with? secondly,rejecting premesis that haven't been proven like, "is there a God" doesn't make it false. =/
bigus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigus "for example, how the black man is closest to the ape and how the white man is the furthest "
What are you talking about? Humans ARE apes...all humans black, white or purple!
And that not my opinion...its a fact... we share almost all of our DNA ...all of us... with our ape cousins... and it doesn't matter if your black or friggin orange!
Seriously I have no friggin clue where you got that from!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
cont.
In fact when you are a member of a species... homo sapiens sapiens... and that subspecies has sub classes (which you would called races)
Then that alone tells you that there is a difference.
It does not tell you which is 'closest' to the original ancestor of black people, white people, to their long extinct ancestors cos we don't have any DNA for those creatures.
both black people and white people have DIVERGED in fact everyone outside africa is the divergence! Unless you are blind!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
cont. So you have two distinct choice you can accept here..
Either A. Black people are more closely related to a common ancestor we all share... which make Caucasians and all other humans 'mutants'
or B. Both black and all other races a simply a linear divergence... in the same way no leaf on a tree is more closely related to the twig that spouted it!
Either way you notion is fucked sideways! Not that it made the slightest bit of sense to start with!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus BTW science will ALWAYS need to prove more... if it had already proven everything there would be nothing left to investigate.... and that won't happen ever!
Now all this 'proven fals'e stuff is currently making new life, genetically modified food that feeds you, modified cotton that clothes you, medicines that cure you and even organisms that produce fuel that gets you from A to B.
I seriously can't see any greater proof than products on the shelves based on this process!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey you know thats not what we are talking about here. we are talking about (and i am exaggerating) a cat becoming a dog over millions of years of evolution, or lightning striking the water and forming a single celled organism which became all life as we know it today. thats the part of evolution we are talking about not small scale evolution or changes over time within species or breed. again, its more likely that a bunch of bricks will eventually become a building over a mil yrs.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Is a raccoon dog a dog/canine? or a racoon? a racoon is not a dog... a dog is not a racoon... in fact a hyena is more closely related to a cat than any canine... so give over with the one species...another species... you have such a conundrum in front of you... Dog or Racoon... please choose!
Again a simple question...and again I find myself repeating the same question. Forget about everything else... try to concentrate on the question and stop going off on a tangent!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus You also failed miserably to even read my posts...
If 'no new information' can enter a genome.. please explain where all the different TYPES of dog came from? isn't that NEW information?
Unless you think a racoon dog has the same quantity of genomes with the same information that a Grey wolf does...and both are classified as canine!
But they have different quantities of chromosomes...and different information in those chromosomes. They cannot interbreed, yet are both DOGS... explain?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
God creates dog, dog gets on ark, language confusion at babel separates human and their animals, flocks etc.-->humans and animals move around the globe breeding and setting up camps in various parts of the world and become what they are today.as the information is lost creating the specific breeds eventually getting to the point they can no longer interbreed we are left with still just a "dog" only a specific type of dog. africans and eskimos are still humans just adapted to their env.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus So new information WAS added to genes...despitemoving about or partying til the wee hours of the morning...or whatever... ?
Regardless of movement or anything were there 1.5 million pairs of animals on the ark or not? If not how was all the extra information added to create a discrepancy between such dogs as grey wolves and raccoon dogs?
This is pretty simple why am I repeating myself?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
obviously thats very basic, full of holes, and carries plenty of room for question and debate but basically thats what we believe occured. where evolution says. big bang single cell, sea animals, land animals, monkey, black man, latin man, blah blah blah to the superior white man,which makes hitlers plan of creating a super race not a bad plan at all its just evolution. BTW where to moral values come from? its kinda like your question about genetically enhanced food, which btw is worse for us.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus You still have not answered the question...allow me to rephrase it... if adding EXTRA information is impossible... then there is a requirement to contain ALL species on the ark... if its not impossible then your argument falls apart...
SO to rephrase... were ALL the dogs on the ark... or did they evolve by adding new data to their genomes after the flood... it can't be both...
I'm sure we can agree to 'change the subject' to moralistic values AFTER you qualify that.
please explain
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus Do you really, really really believe there were only two original canines on the ark...which eliminates a requirement to contain 1.5 million animals, their food, their bedding etc.etc.? And then over he last 3k years formed all of the other dogs we see? Is that what you think?
Now thats the bones of it, its really simple... the answer can only be yes or no.
But feel free to elaborate on the yes or no... be my guest!
Hitler knew jack shit about the process of evolution btw.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus y'know as Scott D. Weitzenhoffer once commented.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
Please try very hard to stick to the subject. I know its hard cos you are about to face a pretty hard question but thats the point!
So, 'were their 100 species of Dog on the ark... or only one which later evolved into the others?'
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
to see where ID theory is coming from or the reasoning behind it then you need to follow it all the way through using its own premise"
I read it, all of it, and after reading other works, not all of them, but a lot. I therefore have a comparison. ID makes no sense in the light of real biological advances. I'm not qualified to make that assertion professionally though. However it does make assertions which are totally uncorroborated and which are mostly bogus.
Would you like examples?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus
Now in answering that question please stick to what you 'think' is true...
1. New information cannot be added to a genome (so all the dogs had to be on the ark as they mostly have different quantities of genomes)
2. No form of evolution is allowed ( a very big no no)
3. You can't just make stuff up.
4. You can't make the boat big enough either (thats actually physically impossible)
5. Try not to resort to 'god did it' since thats the subject of the question.
6. Dogs eat meat!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
You might also consider the following...
1. Is a Hyena a dog? It sure looks like a dog!
2. If a Hyena is a dog is a Lion is also a Dog? Lions and Hyenas are more closely related than a Grey Wolf is to the Hyena?
3. If you decide a hyena is NOT a dog then what 'rule' did you use to make that decision?
Given that you used the term 'Canines' I'll assume your using the taxonomic classification based on DNA hybridization?
But isn't that the classification designed by evolutionary biologists?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
actually, if the flood scenerio is true you would only need 2 preflood canines.the loss of information in the creating of breeds and regional packs would have occurred after the flood as people and animals broke off and went their separate ways leaving the originals behind. the 7 of every clean animal means that 5 of every 7 clean animal were used for meat.dogs are not simply carnivors that ONLY eat meat they eat pretty much everything.but they would have had plenty of meat all the same.
bigus 1 year ago
"actually, if the flood scenerio is true you would only need 2 preflood canines"
Thats called evolution...except at an impossibly accelerated rate. Racoon dogs and red foxes and grey wolves are SO different that this cannot have happened unless it was actually visible to the observers.
Its certainly not mentioned anywhere and surely someone would have noticed it in the last 100 years? It flies in the fact of what you have been told.
Elaborate.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@bigus So what you are saying by 'pre flood canines' is that ther was an animal... which was NOT a walrus...and WAS NOT a giant Panda... but that the giant Panda and the Walrus share this animal as a common ancestor...
Well how is this possible if data is only ever lost....? Since the Giant Pandas closest living relative is the Walrus! NOT the brown bear... not the black bear... the Walrus!
You can apply that to any canine species you like too!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@ebeatworld agreed
bigus 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Well I'm a Christian evolutionist and I think Hovind truly is nuts. His argument against Neanderthals and Paleontology is that scientists willingly try to fool the world? Modern paleontology isn't a hoax and creationists run around saying "carbon dating is vastly inaccurate look at our tests that show it is" but never get their testing reviewed by scientific institutions so no wonder we don't listen. Explaining cavemen like this is honestly something a 4 year old could make up.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
there is really no such thing as a christian evolutionist.real christians believe what the bible says and let the bible interpret itself. the bible claims to be the word of God so you believe it or you don't. real christians believe in Christ and therefore would believe the Bible as His inspired word and not try to fit Darwins word into Gods word which contradicts evolution. you simply can't believe both and if you claim to i question your understanding of the bible and christianity.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus So I'm not a real christian? Your doubting my love for Christ based on my views of evolutionary biology? Wow, how Christian of you friend.....
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
no im not saying i can judge where your heart is.but the christ of the bible is the christ of creation aswell as the christ the savior in the new testiment you kinda have to believe both since they go hand in hand.its the difference between thinking Christ was just a good man or prophet from understanding that he is also the Sovereign God of the universe and creation.a prophet cant save us only God could have.why would you love christ if he didnt have the power to save? what do you base it on?
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Of course I believe he's the God of the Universe and the ONLY way to the Father. I have been a Christian for some time now; I attend a conservative Anglican church that believes in the tenants of Scripture and the Creeds of the Early Church. I cannot however, accept the fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of Scripture brought about by the Reformation and Catholic struggles. If you'll remember the first one to doubt the 7 literal days of creation was St Augustine.
TheArsenalfc101 1 year ago
i dont doubt that st augustine questioned it. catholics don't take the bible literally for the most part and typically value tradition over the word. the catecism even says that the church has authority over the scriptures, and while i disagree with catholocism, i can see that you would definately have questions if you are immersed in that system. im sorry if i insulted you, i didnt mean to i just didnt understand how you could believe a little bit here and there but not all of it.see Rev.13&17
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus
Your level of schizophrenia is astounding. You need major psychiatric help immediately.
Potoholic 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Obviously your only reading the bits you want to... or remembering the bits you want to...
1. Kent hovind is not qualified to make comments on anything since he's personally uneucated and patently not to be trusted.
2. At one point he shows the diagram for the formation of a black hole and claims its one for the start of the universe... and printed ON that slide is 'formation of a black hole' ... So he deliberately lies.
and he does it all for one thing... money!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@ebeatworld
Further.. despite his protestations that 'morality' is learned from the bible... he himself is imprisoned for stealing YOUR MONEY!
next he never gave a red cent to any charity that he himself did not have full control of! Despite claiming he did...and despite telling everyone to give to him!
And to top that...while hes saying one thing and doing another.. real altruists are alive an well... some have donated their entire fortunes...and at the top of that list are the irreligious!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@ebeatworld So hovind...whichever way you spin it is guilty of 'evil' (which I claim does not exist...but you think does)
And those that are supposedly evil...are actaully handing their entire wealth away to charity?
He's an outright liar, peddling buillshit to garner as much cash as he can. At one point he even claimed that a 'drop' of water could be spread thin enough to cover the earth... which is impossible, but he didn't bother to find out if that was true...and he didn't care!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
smart guy :)
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
DUDE!!! This guy is in jail for fraud!!!!!!
maludanger 1 year ago
@maludanger
He paid his taxes. Some jealous guys framed him.
I'd like to give you the evidence, but I won't because you don't want it.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
OK how old is this? really?
maludanger 1 year ago
This man ought to be highly ashamed of himself, and I'm not even talking about his beliefs on creation. You present material of such a profound and serious nature as to invoke the Bible verse concerning the millstone and being cast into the sea, and with your same breath you make an insensitive and highly inappropriate racial remark about a Middle Easterner hiding in a 7-Eleven (I'm NOT defending Osama by ANY MEANS). This is why people dismiss Christians as quacks and hypocrites.
agbadu 1 year ago
@agbadu its not racial its just example that hes giving... i dont agree wit evoulution and i was a none beliver so imagine that a none beliver now believes in GOD! a 17 year old.... nd the fact is the public school text books leave out a lot of information. im in 10th grade learing about ww2 which is middle school or 9th grade work.
heroblue15 1 year ago
kent hovind you are a fucktard
123columbo123 1 year ago
@123columbo123
Just cussing, swearing, jeering, & gutter-mouthing Kent Hovind is not gonna make u guys the "right, & win the argument." If all u say is just "He's an idiot, he's a liar", do u KNOW that, or do u THINK that? Just saying stuff like that, over & over & over again, is not gonna get u ANYWHERE.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV lol you really think there's any kind of argument !!!!!
123columbo123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genesis is fiction:Most bible colleges teach it`s allegory:As an example, there are 106 schools in the Christian College Coalition. Of those 106 only 5 teach a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation or that the flood was global & the flood prevailed the highest peak
lizazoon 1 year ago
Hello, Creationists.
You claim to believe your Bibles,
so why don't you attend to what it says?
Jesus himself tells you to judge teachers by their FRUIT.
Hovind is a criminal convicted on 58 separate felonies,
including FRAUD.
Yet you embrace him as a source of truth?
Isn't that rather...
well, stupid?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
yea because no one in earths history was ever framed or wrongfully imprisoned. but thats really not the point. truth is truth no matter where it comes from.lets say you are right that he is guilty of everything would that make the things he says untrue just because he is guilty?should we only believe people that have never done anything wrong?show me someone who isn't guilty of something?i guess no one can believe anyone.darwin was plagued with doubts about his own theory yet its taught as fact.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus
"would that make the things he says untrue just because he is guilty?"
No, his lies are part of the fruit I am speaking of.
His lies stand alone as lies.
His criminal activities are merely consistent with his lies.
I see that you have no interest in the teaching of Jesus,
but prefer to rely on your emotional response
to this failed auto mechanic in a $20 white lab coat.
".darwin was plagued with doubts about his own theory"
Only at first, until the evidence trumped his religion.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
"Only at first, until the evidence trumped his religion"-actually it was on his death bed and he was plagued with doubts until deaths peaceful embrace took him."I see that you have no interest in the teaching of Jesus" - from what do you draw this conclusion. also what makes you think kent hovind is the one who changed my mind or caused me to believe in his theories?there are hosts of other scientists that make good arguments for creationism.i believe in creation because of the bible not kent.
bigus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigus
"it was on [Darwin's] death bed and he was plagued with doubts until deaths peaceful embrace took him."
Please provide a reliable source for this story.
You cannot.
This is a lie perpetuated by ignorant and unethical creationists.
You seem to be another believer telling lies for Jesus.
How inspiring.
You try to put words in my mouth,
but I will not allow that.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 creationists are actually very learned especially the ones who were once evolutionist who took their learning even further and saw that the theory of evolution had too many problems and moved on to the opinion that many of lifes complexities point to intelligent design because evolution would be an impossibility.evolutionists used to say change required billions of years now they are saying changes must have occured suddenly in order for them to have happened. waffle/backpedal hmm
bigus 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
kent good work..all those guys will also find out later..but i think then it might be to ..
god bless you kent
jesus saves!!!!!!!
nico1m 1 year ago
It's common knowledge that nothing offensive is true. That's why serial killers and pedophiles don't exist. That's also why nobody ever poop, the toilet is just there to show we are sophisticated.
RoguishlyHandsome 1 year ago
Neb. man was never accepted as a human ancestor. The newpaper made up the picture, not scientists,
Lying bastard.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Live to 900? I thought religion was to answer questions, not make more.
gregrutz 1 year ago 2
RELIGION isn't answering that question,SCIENCE is.the bible makes the claim, scientists like kent(he isn't the only one), use SCIENCE to show how living to 900 COULD have been possible, they are THEORIES and have to be because NO ONE was there.his theory's are based on biblical REFERENCE and MODERN SCIENCE to show how it COULD have been possible.you are acting like he is saying saying that this is EXACTLY what happened. i keep hearing him say.."i believe that this is what the bible is saying."
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Wrong, Kent is not a scientists, he was a teacher. He denies any science that shows the bible wrong.
He won't look at fossils or geology.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I agree that Hovind is no scientist.
I don't thin k he ever taught in an accredited school, either.
I am willing to be corrected, of course.
Does anyone know of any school he ever taught in,
aside from these "post-teacher" lectures?
Thanks.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
We are not "ignorant," in fact we are quite smart. We don't just give into what we are told just because someone says it's true. We question things! Where is your evidence of God? I'm sorry, but we don't take story books seriously. Go out and rethink your life. And good job finding evidence against us (if you even call that evidence) would you like us to find evidence against your god?
BIllClintonTheTroll 2 years ago 11
@BIllClintonTheTroll We are not "ignorant" in fact we are quite smart. We don't just give into what we are told just because someone says it's true. EXACTLY! We don't either. There is no evidence for God, stupid comment, if there was you wouldn't be posting your comment. Just like there is no evidence for abiogenesis. Go out and re think your life and good job finding evidence against us (if you call that evidence).
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
@BIllClintonTheTroll
Go watch evolution: the grand experiment if its on youtube
i will give you evidence, i shall start with this
tell me when youve watched it
MetallicaAndy 1 year ago
have you questioned the fact that you may be wrong? i would actually like you to find evidence that there is no God. evolutionists have no more proof about anything just more questions based on new findings about poor, failed early hypothesis. the creationist stance never changes...evolutionists continue to waffle and rephrase because real science continues to disprove it so they have to form new hypothesis to try and make things "fit" its like puting tape on a house that continues to fall apart
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Most evolutionist accept God, it does not conflict with God.
Evolution is a process that happened. fact
The theory of evolution show how it happened and changes to fit any new data.
gregrutz 1 year ago
evolution isn't a fact thats why its called the theory of evolution. the sad thing is that its taught like a fact so ppl grow up being brainwashed from an early age to think it is.if you wanted unbiased science like it should be then children should be taught what each theory says and allowed to decide for themselves.actually i think evolution has a big conflict with God.IF there was a God who could create why would there be the need for billions of years of evolution when he could just create?
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Gravity is a fact, there is a theory of gravity that shows how it works.
Evolution is a fact, there is a theory of evolution that shows how it happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago