THE DAY AGE THEORY does have holes you can walk through I agree. Bible says the plants were created on the 3rd day, then the sun on the fourth. God can do anything he wants in whatever order he wants. Curious how man was made last, the time between man and before man is really the only thing in question with Paleontologists and people of faith. THE DAY AGE THEORY may be the only thing that fits between the 6th and 5th day. Everyday in 1000 years can be 1000 years, you know, to god!
The Christian faith should be a growing experience, as you all know that it is. Why shouldn't theories of what the Bible is really saying also grow? Being rigid in our thinking stems from faith and also makes it easier to preach to others if it is stable like god's love towards us. It just is easier to accept the 7 days as 7 days. Come on people, god does all that creating and we make the 7 days as simple as 7 days? Please, it's like saying we understand the workings of the mind of god.
I keep thinking about "The Genesis Project" in the Star Trek movie. If it sounds stupid, sorry. I'm learning like everyone else. God does have the power to snap things into existence, and none of us was there to witness to the contrary concerning the Bible's statements. I know that my memories of 30 years ago are just like real-time occurrences, fresh and clear.
Even though it was 24 hour type days as in regular days it desn't have to be exactly 24 hours those days could have been 25 hours or 26 hours or so and it would have been essentually the same thing. It is possible for them to be periods but they were days. Patronising people is not good and they should make a debate in relatable terms but yes science is something that the laymen is nowhere near able to understand. Really thinkg about it.
Under at least the scientific if not general definition of life all plants and insects are fully life and then some. The fact of a day being a quivilant to a thousand years in the Bible and such refers to the fact that God can perceive timescales far smaller and far larger than humans can, it's not just that he is existing through the ages his thought process and power operates much quicker than imagined, it's about extremes. That is what it means.
I'm not really going to say most plants do have a soul but how does he know plants don't how does having a soul depend on blood of the processing of gasses through blood. Even if plants were alive in the sense he say and they died so what as if that really effects something like sin and bringing death into the world. Neither does he know nor does it really matter that much wether insects are alive. Some plants may just have a soul but I believe some but not most insects have a soul.
Where is the evidence for Hovind's world wide flood? He claims to have performed an experiment to prove his Hovind Theory by mixing various soil samples with water in a clear sided container which then settle into layers, light at top, heavy at bottom which he claims is what we see in deposits around the world, supposedly deposited by a great flood. Trouble is, that it's not what we find, and this actually disproves his nonsense theory.
(continued ...) What is going on in the minds of his followers, that makes them COMPLETELY ignore ALL logic and reason, and instead subscibe to some ludicrous, not to menton ancient fairytale? Believing in God (or being somesrt of theist in general) isn't a "bad" thing, but totally ignoring reality inorder to do so is; I mean even the Catholic Church accepts evolution (and the 4.5 billion year Earth, etc.). What is WRONG with these creationist people?
His little "mind game" consists of "empowering" his audiance by making them think he is more knowledgable that legitamite scientists (and other real PhDs); there by duping the audiance into believing that if they listen to him the will be just as "knowledgable" as he portrays himself. Studying how exactly he is able to do this, especially when he tells such bold-faced lies, would be very interesting. (continued in the comment above ...)
Kent Hovind is EXTREMELY manipulative; he maniputlates his gullible audiance much in the same way a peddophile "grooms"a child, DISGUSTING! He use his phoney, diploma-mil "PhD" to make these people think he is WAY more educated than he actually is. ... (continued in the comment above ...)
@gregrutz have you ever seen a demonstration of how sediment is layed down? there is never a universal layer which is why rock layer dating fails. when earth and sediment is churned with water there are hills and valleys formed with all the lighter layers pooling up heavily in the valleys and lightly if at all on the peaks.nothing is uniform its all determined by the weight of the sediment in the water and the shape of the terrain underneath.the geologic column fails miserably at dating anything
i absolutely agree with you, thank you for proving my point. the heavier layers are at the bottom and the silt is on the top. it doesn't mean the bottom layers are OLDER it means they were HEAVIER, BIG difference. the geological column tries to say the bottom stuff is older than the top stuff. this is false based the principle of how sediment layering happens.in some places you can see rippling in the crust which would mean the older stuff is higher than the younger layers making no sense at all
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
shells and fossils on the mountains?? ive picked them up myself, and thats just one tidbit of obvious evidence. also getting back to you regarding dinosaurs ruling the earth. creationists dont explain that because dinosaurs never ruled the earth for 160million years nor did they rule the earth at all. period. man did, dinosaurs existed along side man peacefully and died in the flood for the most part.evolutionists now say fossils form suddenly as opposed to the earlier theories.flood anyone?
@gregrutz lol so does kent, so does the bible, plate techtonics doesn't disprove the theory of a flood, it just shows how the earths crust shifts on a bed of lava. which it would naturally do IF the earths crust had been broken up in a catastrophic disaster dealing with volcanic eruptions and worldwide flooding.its just a logical argument you have to follow all the way down starting with creation and the flood the bible talks about. it makes perfect logical sense if you follow it through.
@1954phyllis The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of rock was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet ASL. Then the canyon was cut. How long do you think this took?
If you know anything about geology you would know the G. Canyon proves there was no flood
its Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature ..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..they also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
@Eye2EyeIIIV I dont know what the biblical sense of life is supposed to be. but in a real sense pants are very much alive. They reproduce, they consume, they are molded by evolution. Thats life.
@gregrutz creationists absolutely look at the fossil record....no where does the fossil record prove that dinosaurs ruled earth for 160 million years.
@gregrutz wait were you talking about the ACTUAL fossil record, or what evolutionists say the fossil record is saying by putting a bunch of made up dates on the dinosaur bones. what about the finding of human bones with dinosaur bones or the fossilized human footprints with the dinosaur footprints.are those fossils fake? fossils should interpret themselves.evolutionists try so hard to fit square objects into round holes. so much can be said for simple deductive reasoning.
@5tonyvvvv neither plants nor animals have a soul nor a spirit. I know you believe they do so there is no point in discussing that subject at length in this kind of forum, but, yes that is how I see it as a scientific/naturalist/rational thinker.
Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
@5tonyvvvv abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory in the sense that anyone claims to understand it. of course life come from life.. thats how evolution works. If life randomly popped into existence all the time than evolution would not work the way we know it does. We all want to know how life began. It one of the deepest scientific mysteries. Still just because its a hard question doesn't mean that appeasing your curiosity by accepting fairy tails is the right course of action.
You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is? carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! How dumb can you be?.. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste MORON!!!...LOL!..
@5tonyvvvv I never said I think chemical thrown in to a test tube just become RNA... RNA has to evolve. Synthetic RNA is being made. Im not sure how they do it and I fairly sure it is done with already existing RNA protiens... but I'd have to study the subject more deeply to be sure.
@Aprilshowersss You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes to make a cell..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.
@5tonyvvvv About your paradox... The opposite is correct. A natural process if one of the only ways to get a symbiotic relationship in nature. One that appears to depend on the very things that depend on it. Systems that will break if just one piece is missing, ie an "irreducibly complex" system... that's another way of putting it. These things evolve slowly.. and end up different than they were in the beginning. NOW they are dependent on each other completely, but it was not always so.
@Aprilshowersss Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
@5tonyvvvv The study of DNA and life in general is mind bogglingly complicated and no scientist worth his salt claims otherwise. No one has all the answers but we learn more all the time. We can currently build simple dna structures and crates very very simple life forms.. but nothing near a multicellular creature.
@Aprilshowersss If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell.
@5tonyvvvv RE:" If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell." This is so wrong it makes me sad.
Well its all up to which historian you ask. Because matthew mark luke and john were written by themselves. And each one of them died a martyrs death excluding john. So they were all writtien before they were killed and none of these men lived more than 50 years after christ died. So yeah its all up to which historian you believe thats why Christianity is a faith based religion.
"This assumes ancient man was dumb and we need modern Gurus to tell us what God's word means. (Cults get started this way.)" Seven seconds later he says, "Folks, let me interpret that for ya."
Even if you think he's refering to interpretting the scientists' words instead of God's Word, isn't everything he says about the Bible "interpretting God's Word"? Even if he thinks he's interpretting it correctly, he IS interpretting it for other people to TEACH them.
Gorteen-, he mentions that plants aren't alive, however animals are, if everything he says about plants is proof they aren't alive, then the exact opposite means it is alive (simple enough)
So he says plants don't breathe, have blood or souls, so the opposite applies to animals and man. :)
The problems with this are: 1. Plants are alive... until they die. 2. Plants certainly respire, which is what breathing allows us to do. (I agree they dont have 'blood', but most have vascular systems for the transport of metabolic products. I certainly agree they don't have souls, but don't know how you could test for that.) 3. Not all animals breath. Insects don't breath, and they are animals. 4. Insects don't have blood.
That's similar to putting words into someones mouth, man decided that plants die because they whither and decay. Insects breathe through their skin and their blood is called haemolymph which is much different to human blood, but it's still blood.
Weird topic: Scientists said that someone was on some sort of scale when they died and the moment they did, they lost 3 pounds. Now I would say it would be all the cells dying, but some say it's the soul, who knows, but if anything it helps my case lol
Hmm. Using the biological definition of 'living', plants are alive. If you wish use the definition: living = having blood, you are welcome. It isn't a very good definition though, as any dead animal still containing blood is by definition still living. You could, of course, re-define 'dead', but it couldn't be: dead = having no blood, could it?
Your misreading my words, that which is living has blood(1), a soul(2), and has the breath of life(3).
My reference for many things that leads to facts upon research is the Bible, it's never been wrong once, and by that reasoning, is never going to be wrong.
Now it's clear, apart from the impossibility of testing for a 'soul'.
Compare 1 Kings 4:26 with 2 Chronicles 9:25. This is one of nuerous contradictions within the Bible. If you think that the Bible has 'never been wrong once', you obviously haven't studied the Bible, or anything else.
Read it carefully. 1 Kings says, "Solomon had 40,000 stalls OF horses FOR his chariots," That's how many horses he had FOR the chariots. 2 Chronicles says, "Solomon had 4000 stalls FOR horses AND chariots," They had 40,000 stalls for horses, and then had 4,000 stalls for the horses AND chariots together. They had 10 horses per chariot.
The chariot was the tank of that day. If you only have one horse, and it gets injured/killed, you're stuck. However, if you have 10 horses, your alright.
For your benefit I'll explain that it doesn't contradict itself, but I'm not going to go all day on 100's of verses of how they "contradict" one another.
Acts 1:18 describes what occurred AFTER Judas hanged himself in Matthew 27:5. His body began to decay as it hung from the rope. Eventually, his corpse fell and burst asunder when it hit the ground, he literally burst apart.
The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, the way it's worded and styled is different to todays way and is confusing - KJV
Acts 2: 18 Now this man purchased a field.... (hard to do when you've hanged yourself in matt 27:5)
Matthew 27: 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver at the temple...
Matthew 27: 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field...
Yeah, maybe he bought the field with other money, blahblah blah. But 'falling headlong' doesn't begin to suggest a rotting corpse falling from its noose. The Bible frequently contradicts itself.
It's stating "now he HAD purchased a field after he hung himself"
Don't make this complicated, it's confusing the way it's worded but it's not contradictory.
I'm done, I've made my point, you can find all the "contradictions" you want and look them up on Google if your curious, but ONLY in the King James Version. The others have flaws in them. KJV is the only one that's truly accurate.
The verse is giving a summarization as to what has happened. That's all it is, you have to read it carefully.
"Now he "HAD" purchased a field..."
Would it make sense to say that you "had" purchased something on eBay after it was done? That's all it is, it was also written in dead tongue. Throughout the whole Bible it seems strangely worded but that's the way they spoke.
And it is NOT wrong. Never has, that's why I believe it's accuracy. There is 1 scribal error in there but that's human error
I really don't understand this unjustified belief in Biblical inerrancy. I can cope with Christianity - in its broadest sense - but to claim, like Hovind, that the Bible is inerrant is absurd.
Just out of interest, do you keep Satruday as the Sabbath, like the Bible says?
Re: Sabbath. There was an obligation to keep Saturday as the Sabbath until Collosians was written. The penalty for breaking this was being stoned to death. Aren't you glad we live in enlightened times?
Re: Flaws in the Bible. Are we sticking solely to contradictions within the Bible, or contradictions between the Bible and, say, science, history etc? Either way some explanation of Deuteronomy 25:12 would be interesting.
"There was an obligation to keep Saturday as the Sabbath until Collosians"
--All animals and man were also created to be vegetarians only, but later we were allowed to eat meat. Your point?
There are contradictions with the Bible "against" science because science is wrong. The Bible itself is not wrong and without self-contradictions. What about Deuteronomy 25:12?
There are no contradictions in the Bible, that being said I'm not going to interpret 100 contradictions you give me, if you want an answer you can easily look it up online, I'm sure you'll find it.
God is loving but he gives you free will. You know what's right and wrong, if you intentionally choose wrong knowing the consequences then your going to be punished. This is parenting. He's our father, he created us, he has the right to punish us when we do wrong.
So my father has the right to punish me? Perhaps, but eternity in hell is an infinite punishment for what can only be finite crimes. If you want to justify this immoral threat, you're welcome, but brace yourself for the inevitable laughter.
Look it up online dude, I just said that, I'm not going to interpret 100 "contradictions" you give me. type the verse in with the word "contradiction" and you'll find the solution.
He has set a perfect example in a book that's never been wrong and he has made it extremely simple. Why wouldn't he punish you for eternity for a lifetime of disobedience? If you murder 10 people, taking their lives, does it not seem reasonable to serve a life sentence if not death? His laws are easy, just follow it.
Punishment for crime? That sounds fair. I know that many states in the US have the death penalty, but it is not usually applied for jay-walking. Why? because most people know that the punishment should fit the crime. Eternal punishment for finite crime? No, that is not perfect. It is sick. It means that the vast majority of people on Earth, reagrdless of the type of life they have led, will suffer the fate of being burnt for eternity by a 'loving god'; one they might know nothing about.
I'm not gonna go all day on this, I've given explanations, all your doing now is making scenarios of "why should we suffer for this or that"
We are told what to do, we are told what is right from wrong, the right way is very simple and is very beneficial. Disobedience, purposely, is a struggle and if you forcefully push against what he is telling you to do then you will be punished, this is not a finite crime, your spending your whole life resisting Him. That's all I have to say, I'm done
No, you haven't explained anything. You have merely regurgitated your dogma. You claim; "science is wrong." Well, of course you would have to if you think the Bible is inerrant. Have you used a computer recently? Watched the TV? Had an X-ray? Been inoculated? Put gas in the car? None of these things would be possible without 'wrong' science. So, while you keep believing in absurdity, I'll keep laughing at you.
Lol you can laugh all you want, I do it quite often :)
Also, science has no place when it comes to origins unless they create a time machine to go back into the past to study it. There is no actual evidence for evolution, until they have some, I'm not interested in it. Computers, X-rays, and cars all have to deal with todays time, not origins. Science is testable/observable things. You can't test the origin of life, if it happened, it only happened once and you can't observe that.
You forget that computers, cars etc. are made from minerals and oils. Geologists find these. The same geologists who show that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
Evolution (not the origin of life) has been observed, is testable and has overwhelming evidence to support it. You don't have to observe something to deduce what happened in the past! If you find a tree in full leaf lying on its side with its roots in the air, are you claiming no-one can tell it fell over? Really?
Oh I believe evolution, Micro-evolution. That is the only thing that happens and that's all scientists observe, they never see 1 thing changing into another.
Let me ask you this. If evolution were true, then why don't we find fossils with "deformed" fishes? frogs with 6 eyes? horses with fingers? reptiles with hooves? Why does everything "only" have 4 legs, or 2 legs, 2 arms(animals) why 2 eyes? Why 1 tail? Why don't we find some pretty fucked up creatures?
The reason amphibians, reptiles, birds and mamals have four limbs and one tail is because they have a common ancestor. This is the central tenet of evolution. We don't find horses with fingers, but ancestral horses had five toes. What is a deformed fish? Tiktaalik was a fish, but with eyes frontally placed. A deformity? Yes. A useful one? Yes. Hooves first appeared in mammals, so their descendants are hooved, not their ancestors.
A six eyed frog would pretty much destroy evolution...
The evolution of horses has been proven wrong around 50 years ago, that's what I dislike about evolution, the lies that support it.
What's so ridiculous about amphibians moving onto land is they would have to have a complete systems change in muscle, breathing, bones, everything, this change, when in an intermediary phase, would not be able to swim or walk on land. How would a fish even start to change into a land animal? It has all it needs in the water, it doesn't care about land conquest
If you want an example of a fish which can move on land and breathe through its skin, take a look at mud-skippers. They also swim!
From this we can conclude that there is nothing ridiculous about fish starting to change into land animals, as we can see examples of just such creatures today.
I'll give you mudskippers, although it's still bound to the water. However horse evolution has been proven wrong, so have about 20 other basic lies that hold up evolution in the textbooks in schools today. The fact that they still print the books with it in there astounds me. But yes horse evolution has been proven wrong around 50 years or so ago. (give or take a decade or 2)
Sigh. What '20 lies'? If you like I'll grant you that everything believed about horse evolution is wrong.
But evolution explains why mammals develop a yolk sac in utero: Creationism doesn't. Evolution explains why humann embryos grow a coat of hair around the 6 month stage, though this is usually lost before birth. Creationism doesn't. Evolution explains why some humans are born with tails; Creationism doesn't. Evolution explains why most species are extinct. Creationism doesn't.
Even if horses grew to be something bigger than what they are now, it's still a horse, but for example, the "ancestor" of the modern horse is said to have 16 ribs, the next horse in the chain is said to have 18, but then the third is said to have 19, and todays modern horse has 18. (Note: i'm not 100% accurate on the exact numbers but that is the pattern it takes) That's not evolution
Also those are all examples of micro-evolution, it varies within it's kind, mammals will never produce birds.
Well, I agree that mammals will never produce birds. If they did, that would destroy evolutionary theory. Vertebrates will never produce non-vertebrates. quadrupeds will never produce non-quadrupeds, and if you're wondering about snakes and legless lizards, they're still quadrupeds, or most of them. This is what the fossil evidence suggests.
As for ribs: duplication of things like ribs and digits is genetically controlled. Some humans have 6 fingers per hand; they're still human.
And yet some scientists say that from the lack of evidence, it's possible that evolution was quick (reptile produced a bird) since there wasn't a transitional form.
And those humans that have 6 fingers never pass it on, it's a classic example that evolution cannot happen. Mutations are a scramble of what's already there in the genetic code, it already has the information to produce a finger, but it will not pass on 6 fingers because it's not a part of the original coding, just a misreading
But there are transitional forms between therapods and birds. Starting with feathered dinosaurs, through confusciusornis etc. Some chickens have teeth, which means the genetic information for growing teeth is found in chickens, but it isn't usually activated. Evolution explains this. Creationism doesn't.
The gene for six fingers is dominant, meaning a parent with one copy will pass it on to 50% of his/her offspring. I've no idea why it's dominant, or indeed why any genes are. Curious.
We've also found dragonflies with 50 inch wingspans, 13 foot tall human skeletons, 12 foot tall birds, cattail plants 60 feet tall, buffalo horns indicating they were twice their size today (and much more). Creationism explains this, Evolution doesn't.
You can say something explains something but there's only 1 answer and it's through reasoning we can figure this out. If evolution says we're getting bigger and smarter, my example disproves that altogether and promotes creation.
Creation only explains one thing: GOD DID IT. Creationism is circular, the only evidence is in a book written by man 2000 years ago. Do you follow anything else written 2000 years ago? why dont you use medicine from 2000 years ago and stop using the current health care system when you get sick??
Creationism is for people who blindly follow a bunch of con artists (including Kent Hovind -- in jail now).
No I'm not, scientists hide this information as well as they can legally because the 300(est.) skeletons found disprove evolution too well
The Quran was written by 1 man (technically his friends wrote down his words he spoke) the Bible is written by numerous individuals who eventually put all the pieces together, Jesus came into the world, examined the book and said it had not been perverted by man. I'll be glad to talk about this, but if your just trying to bash it, take it somewhere else
As aforementioned, if your going to just simply find any way to bash Christianity or Creation, take it somewhere else, I'm not interested.
As I mentioned earlier, it's very well hidden, there's no website that has that specific story on the 300 skeletons that I can find just with Google, however if you want, you can type into Google "steve quayle charts" and click the first link, that'll give you a bit of information on the topic. The biggest skeleton found was around 5 times bigger than normal
Who the hell is Steve Quayle? Where did he do his Biology degree? Or did he go to Med school?
I'm not bashing Christianity, you said Jesus came back and proof read the bible. I just want to know where you get your drugs, if you think thats true. Cause I need some of that stuff to make the pain of this debate go away.
It doesn't matter where he got his degree because all the teachings today boil down to evolution and is invalid in this discussion.
The Bible has never been wrong once, science books have at one point or another, why should we trust science over the Bible? Also, stop bringing up the drug thing, it's not making you look any better, it makes me think your a 5 year old with low immaturity so please stop.
It sure does. Lets put it this way -- If Steve went to Patriot Bible university and got a medical degree, would you like him to perform open heart surgery on you?
how many blind men does Jesus heal on his way to Jericho? One or two? Matthew and Mark seem to think differently on this one -- so your comment about the Bible never being wrong once is not looking very valid right now.
Yes the Bible is and has never been wrong, I knew you'd try and do something like this however I'm not going to answer the 100's of alleged contradictions you give me, i'll explain this one but I'm sure if you type it in Google you'll find the answer.
When two people describe the same event, one my include details the other would not. Matthew mentions two, while Mark and Luke only speak of the more prominent one. Mark and Luke go into more detail on the name.
Stop dismissing what I say, you apparently wanted to say something against me from the beginning and I can understand that, but dismissing and bashing what I say is why I'm not continuing this conversation any further.
Come back when your ready to discuss the subject in a mature manner, I'll be ready to answer any questions you want to ask
It proves that someone with no education on a subject (i.e. you) is trying to argue a fruitless point, with no scientific backing and appropriate references, with someone who has an education in Life Science (and for that matter Computer Science and a Graduate degree on top of that) (i.e. me).
No not inconsistent just more revealing with each writer. The bible has a principle that says out of the mouth of two and three is a matter established. So with the four gospels in the new testament you are getting 4 witnesses each focusing on different aspects of Christs life.
p.s. I am not clear what your goal or argument is about , and I am not trying to further this argument in the comment section. I was just hoping to give you a better insight on the subject. And I would say to you that in your study of religion you have to have and open mind because as i stated earlier Christianity is a faith based religion. So if you cant take a leap of faith then it will never be a valid part of your life. Oh and sorry for being so long winded lol.
what? of course Christianity is faith based -- thats where you are closed minded. Why not believe in Vishnu or Ying & Yang? at least theres recorded archeological evidence for the Mahabharata occurring.
you can never look at science with an open mind if you want to prove a religion is right
Well as I said I am not sure what your really aiming to convey. but I can say that i am not trying to prove any religion is right. Every man must make a decision for himself on what they choose to believe.
OK just to let you know your first sentence makes zero sense. To be faith based means to believe in something you cannot see and that my friend is the farthest thing from being "closed minded."
Yes well you obviously are in dire need of understanding a very basic, very fundamental aspect of Christianity and that simple truth is this. What the Bible says, proven or not, taken in faith, is the only true thing anyone can believe in. Believing in THE TRUTH is not closed mindedness it is AWARENESS. An awareness that will, in the end, saves our souls from an eternal 2nd, never ending, death in Hell. I pray for you dear arp76 may God bless and keep you in good health and happiness.
I don't need your Godbless nor your pity. I pity you for wasting your life on that nonsense. believing one version of something is CLOSEMINDEDNESS and NOT awareness.
1) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). How did plants survive before the sun?
2) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). How is there light without a sun?
I was just browsing through these videos, just checking out was this hovind guy has to say, and i just saw your comment. I believe your answer can be found in Luke 18:35-43. Each writer makes emphasis on other parts of the story. Almost like if we both saw the same event take place but i talked about a specific part and you just generalized the whole story. i hope that answers your question.
If you are claiming that all these creatures were created by an omnipotent being, it is curious that they are all now extinct. All the above are explained by evolution. I don't believe there are 13' human skeletons, because science isn't bound by dogma.
Evolution doesn't say we are getting bigger and smarter, because the only criterion for evolution is that more offspring are produced than survive to maturity, and those which survive tend to be better adapted than those that don't.
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused, proud, or lying yourself.
Well, hes talking about the garden of eden, mentioned in the bible so ofcourse he's going to use scripture. If you don't want so much scripture whatch the age of the earth.
2nd, science has a lot to do with the bible. When historical documents are tested by reliabitlity, they are put through 3 tests (internal, external, and bibliographic test) Archeologists say that the amount of archeolgoical data that supports the bible is so overwhelming, and the bible passes all three of those tests BETTER than any other document. science isn't Evolution. evolution is a theory and science is trying to understand the world and why things happen etc so scripture passes as science
No, science has nothing to do with the bible. I didn't see anything in the bible about evolution, or the earth being billions of years old. And certainly nothing about the billions of galaxies we know about today.
This is like us talking about child birth, and your on the side of the stork theory. It turns out you came from your mothers uterus. The truth isn't always as pretty as you wished it was.
the bible has nothing to do with science. The bible is a group of stories pulled together by a bunch of uneducated men who lived 2000 years ago -- think about it. these were the same people who sprinkled lead into their wine to make it taste better!!!!!!
you are right "Science is not Evolution"
EVOLUTION is part of SCIENCE.
Evolution is a scientific theory -- the highest level of "scientific truth" is a scientific theory.
umm.. day 1 was light- there was sun before anything else! thank you- ive been tryng to have an open mind, and i have made my judgement. Charles darwin admitted himself that evolution is impossible, and i have a relationship with Jesus, so I know that creation is possible. thats my judgement- not to force it on anyone else, but to hope your sane enough to see evolution is a big ecuse for their not being a creator- where did the matter come from? how come the prophecies in the bible are true????
1) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). How did plants survive before the sun?
2) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). How is there light without a sun?
I really hate Kent Hovind he is scientifically stupid but likes to pretend hes not... hes a liar and has been known to be one and is closed minded and full of propoganda. Guys if you really want to know about the gap theory watch Bigwhammyrocks video... Age of the Universe: What does the bible really say
I did but you should be more open minded to how you interpret the bible. How can there be a day one through four without a sun? The earth would not rotate and have an evening and a morning wthout a sun. Just watch the video wih an open mind. Youll be surprised what the bible says. Ive already looked at this young earth theory with an open mind and its not possible. Please at least do the same. Watch the other video with and open mind... Then make a judgment.
Is this a joke? Kent, either way it is impossible. If there was no Sun, temperatures would be almost Absolute Zero. That means, 24 hours, 2 million years, it doesn't matter....impossible. What an ignorant fool he is.
and so it seems way impossible to believe what kent hovind says.... well evolution is JUST as much as a religion as creation and christianity is- you need faith to believe in it :)
No mam, you don't. There is actual, physical evidence of evolution. Evolution does not cover origins. Also, Kent is simply scientifically illiterate on many different issues and levels. He is a liar mam, he lied in federal court too.
but ill actually thank you for beng respectful anyway. You dont get much of that aroud here, and eve though we believe different things, atleast it can be a discussion and not an arguement. Im 13 though, so you dont have to call me mam, but thanks anyway!
I see, well it's good to be interested in these things young, rather than apathetic as so many are, even adults. I am sorry but the earth can not flood. You're 13 so I understand you are what, just starting high school in a year or two...? It is not your fault that such a prospect seems reasonable, Kent has no excuse. See, the earth's water cycle is a closed system. It wasn't always, no way, however, 6,000 years ago; even 4,400 years ago, yes it was. We wouldn't be having this chat otherwise.
heres one example, i was whatching a show and they mentioned that some rock thing proved there had been some sort of (scientific word) well we looked it up, and it was the scientific term for a worldwide flood! because we weren't there for either theorys we need faith to believe in them, which means they aren' necerssarily fact.
There is not enough water to flood the planet, if there was, this would be a water world ALL the time. Lets pretend that is did magically appear though and all this dry land was carved out and destitute. Well, it still would be. It would simply evaporate only to fall elsewhere. There is no atmospheric evidence to the contrary. The density of earth precludes this to be impossible.
ahh, but there you are wong :) you see, i know my bible. It says in the very beginning of genesis 1:2 it says, and the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was hovering over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters' so there was water, just not on earth. i may be young but i can see this makes perfect sense. Kent hovind didn't make me believe in this stuff, it was my knowledge. I think the real issue is no one wants anyone to tell em what to do.
Thats what it really balls down to- but who wants to think they used to be some sort of soup that came to life anyway? and were did the matter come from? There are thousands of prophecies in the bible that came true and are coming true. I know it would seem hard to believe, but it makes a whole lot more sense! For someone young, even I couldn't be tricked by that! i would never believe that something happened out of nothing. a painting doesn't make itself. It needs an artist.
Let me ask you something hun, according to Genesis, when did the Sun come about?
Also, one little thing. The Big Bang / Cosmic Creation Event (if you're a christian that accepts it occurred) provided for once and only once, enough energy to essentially break all physical laws. Regardless, if you want to pursue this, you have to then pursue "god's" origins or at least its nature in regards to the exact causation it used to attain the effect of the known cosmos. No such answer exists.
THE DAY AGE THEORY does have holes you can walk through I agree. Bible says the plants were created on the 3rd day, then the sun on the fourth. God can do anything he wants in whatever order he wants. Curious how man was made last, the time between man and before man is really the only thing in question with Paleontologists and people of faith. THE DAY AGE THEORY may be the only thing that fits between the 6th and 5th day. Everyday in 1000 years can be 1000 years, you know, to god!
mrwebber35 4 months ago
The Christian faith should be a growing experience, as you all know that it is. Why shouldn't theories of what the Bible is really saying also grow? Being rigid in our thinking stems from faith and also makes it easier to preach to others if it is stable like god's love towards us. It just is easier to accept the 7 days as 7 days. Come on people, god does all that creating and we make the 7 days as simple as 7 days? Please, it's like saying we understand the workings of the mind of god.
mrwebber35 4 months ago
Comment removed
mrwebber35 4 months ago
Comment removed
mrwebber35 4 months ago
Comment removed
mrwebber35 4 months ago
I keep thinking about "The Genesis Project" in the Star Trek movie. If it sounds stupid, sorry. I'm learning like everyone else. God does have the power to snap things into existence, and none of us was there to witness to the contrary concerning the Bible's statements. I know that my memories of 30 years ago are just like real-time occurrences, fresh and clear.
buzzclick500 7 months ago
Even though it was 24 hour type days as in regular days it desn't have to be exactly 24 hours those days could have been 25 hours or 26 hours or so and it would have been essentually the same thing. It is possible for them to be periods but they were days. Patronising people is not good and they should make a debate in relatable terms but yes science is something that the laymen is nowhere near able to understand. Really thinkg about it.
RJL738 8 months ago
Under at least the scientific if not general definition of life all plants and insects are fully life and then some. The fact of a day being a quivilant to a thousand years in the Bible and such refers to the fact that God can perceive timescales far smaller and far larger than humans can, it's not just that he is existing through the ages his thought process and power operates much quicker than imagined, it's about extremes. That is what it means.
RJL738 8 months ago
I'm not really going to say most plants do have a soul but how does he know plants don't how does having a soul depend on blood of the processing of gasses through blood. Even if plants were alive in the sense he say and they died so what as if that really effects something like sin and bringing death into the world. Neither does he know nor does it really matter that much wether insects are alive. Some plants may just have a soul but I believe some but not most insects have a soul.
RJL738 8 months ago
"History is full of examples where the majority has been wrong."
Yep - there's an example of it right now, actually...
JMUDoc 9 months ago
Where is the evidence for Hovind's world wide flood? He claims to have performed an experiment to prove his Hovind Theory by mixing various soil samples with water in a clear sided container which then settle into layers, light at top, heavy at bottom which he claims is what we see in deposits around the world, supposedly deposited by a great flood. Trouble is, that it's not what we find, and this actually disproves his nonsense theory.
CarajilloDulce 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Narrow Naughty girls and ladies here benaughtyman.info
sabithaperera 1 year ago
(continued ...) What is going on in the minds of his followers, that makes them COMPLETELY ignore ALL logic and reason, and instead subscibe to some ludicrous, not to menton ancient fairytale? Believing in God (or being somesrt of theist in general) isn't a "bad" thing, but totally ignoring reality inorder to do so is; I mean even the Catholic Church accepts evolution (and the 4.5 billion year Earth, etc.). What is WRONG with these creationist people?
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
@xXxRetroSquirrelxXx To believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is down right ridiculous.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis Ice Cores go bact 300,000 years, Tree rings go back 10,000 years. Chinese history goes back 7000 years. Ever read a book?
gregrutz 1 year ago
His little "mind game" consists of "empowering" his audiance by making them think he is more knowledgable that legitamite scientists (and other real PhDs); there by duping the audiance into believing that if they listen to him the will be just as "knowledgable" as he portrays himself. Studying how exactly he is able to do this, especially when he tells such bold-faced lies, would be very interesting. (continued in the comment above ...)
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
Comment removed
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind is EXTREMELY manipulative; he maniputlates his gullible audiance much in the same way a peddophile "grooms"a child, DISGUSTING! He use his phoney, diploma-mil "PhD" to make these people think he is WAY more educated than he actually is. ... (continued in the comment above ...)
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
Comment removed
xXxRetroSquirrelxXx 1 year ago
Was there death?
Yes, 99% of all species that ever lived on earth are extinct. No trilobites, no dinosaurs.
Was there a flood?
Yes, a local flood, the geologic column proves there was no global flood. No mud layer with all the dead bodies in it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz have you ever seen a demonstration of how sediment is layed down? there is never a universal layer which is why rock layer dating fails. when earth and sediment is churned with water there are hills and valleys formed with all the lighter layers pooling up heavily in the valleys and lightly if at all on the peaks.nothing is uniform its all determined by the weight of the sediment in the water and the shape of the terrain underneath.the geologic column fails miserably at dating anything
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus do you really want to see a demonstration of how it works.
watch
Noah's flood debunked
Floods make one layer with the heavier rock on the bottom and silt on top, not the distinct layers of Different kinds of rock in random order
gregrutz 1 year ago
i absolutely agree with you, thank you for proving my point. the heavier layers are at the bottom and the silt is on the top. it doesn't mean the bottom layers are OLDER it means they were HEAVIER, BIG difference. the geological column tries to say the bottom stuff is older than the top stuff. this is false based the principle of how sediment layering happens.in some places you can see rippling in the crust which would mean the older stuff is higher than the younger layers making no sense at all
bigus 1 year ago 2
@bigus you missed the point. there is not one layer with heavy on the bottom and silt on top,
there are DISTINCT layers of DIFFERENT kinds of rock.
Some layers are ash, some are wind blown sand.
watch noah's flood debunked where they do the test.
gregrutz 1 year ago
from 8:09 is funny xD
"I do too, but I ran out of film, years ago"
Eye2EyeIIIV 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
There was no flood, no evidence at all.
gregrutz 1 year ago
shells and fossils on the mountains?? ive picked them up myself, and thats just one tidbit of obvious evidence. also getting back to you regarding dinosaurs ruling the earth. creationists dont explain that because dinosaurs never ruled the earth for 160million years nor did they rule the earth at all. period. man did, dinosaurs existed along side man peacefully and died in the flood for the most part.evolutionists now say fossils form suddenly as opposed to the earlier theories.flood anyone?
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus The top third of the Matterhorn is old sea bed. Part of Africa, it did not get there in a flood. Plate techtonics explains how it got there.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz lol so does kent, so does the bible, plate techtonics doesn't disprove the theory of a flood, it just shows how the earths crust shifts on a bed of lava. which it would naturally do IF the earths crust had been broken up in a catastrophic disaster dealing with volcanic eruptions and worldwide flooding.its just a logical argument you have to follow all the way down starting with creation and the flood the bible talks about. it makes perfect logical sense if you follow it through.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus You just have one problem, There is no evidence for a flood, NONE !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Oh yes there is evidence for the flood, take a look at the Grand Canyon.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@1954phyllis The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of rock was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet ASL. Then the canyon was cut. How long do you think this took?
If you know anything about geology you would know the G. Canyon proves there was no flood
gregrutz 1 year ago
@1954phyllis Correct!
its Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature ..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..they also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
The garden of eden is childish nonsense.
lizazoon 1 year ago
He means in the biblical sense. In the Bible it states life is in the blood. Plants do NOT have blood. Leviticus 17:11.
scorchhunter 1 year ago
actually they have something similar. they have vascular capabilities through Xylem and Phloem
arp76 1 year ago
What about animals that don't have blood like jellyfish? Are they not a live fucktard?
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
they ARE animals. great example of where bible is completely oblivious of science.
oh by the way, 'alive' is one word not two, fucktard
arp76 1 year ago
wtf my comment wasn't directed at you asshole. And that was a "typo" fucktard.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
check 'view all comments' you replied to me.
arp76 1 year ago
PLANTS AREN'T ALIVE!!!?!?!?!?
Facepalm
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago 4
@Aprilshowersss
No, plants do not have "life" in the biblical sense.
They wither, they fade, yes, but they're not alive like people & animals.
My computer or car dies, but they're not alive.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV I dont know what the biblical sense of life is supposed to be. but in a real sense pants are very much alive. They reproduce, they consume, they are molded by evolution. Thats life.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV Plants are cells, just like you. The have the same DNA as you.
Can you till the difference between a live tree and a dead one.
One is alive, one is not.
Plants evolved too, they have the fossil record of them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Sorry, dude, plant fossils have nnot changed over the years, neither has animals...watch the video Evolution: the grand experiment to see what i mean
MetallicaAndy 1 year ago
@MetallicaAndy You, like all creationist, never look at the fossil record, it is all there for you to see.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years, I think it has changed a little.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz creationists absolutely look at the fossil record....no where does the fossil record prove that dinosaurs ruled earth for 160 million years.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Then how do creationsits explain dinosaurs ruling the earth and changing for160 million years.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@bigus Yes, the fossil record proves dinosaurs ruled the earth,
like I said, YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT IT!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz wait were you talking about the ACTUAL fossil record, or what evolutionists say the fossil record is saying by putting a bunch of made up dates on the dinosaur bones. what about the finding of human bones with dinosaur bones or the fossilized human footprints with the dinosaur footprints.are those fossils fake? fossils should interpret themselves.evolutionists try so hard to fit square objects into round holes. so much can be said for simple deductive reasoning.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus Correct, the foot prints are fake or a smaller dinosaur's.
No human fossils have ever been bound in old rock or with the dinosaur fossils.
The dates are not relivent, the older rocks are below the younger rocks.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@Aprilshowersss
He means alive like this:
Humans are alive, we have a soul, a spirit, we are special
we are alive
a plant is alive, but it does not have a soul, a spirit, it is not aware, its just a biological machine put here to feed us and give us oxygen
that's what he means by plants not being alive
MetallicaAndy 1 year ago
@Aprilshowersss Plants dont have a soul and spirit..so u will just rot in the ground?..or u positive u wont go to an afterlife.?
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv neither plants nor animals have a soul nor a spirit. I know you believe they do so there is no point in discussing that subject at length in this kind of forum, but, yes that is how I see it as a scientific/naturalist/rational thinker.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
@Aprilshowersss
Stubborn ignorance..what do we see in nature dummy..life arises from life..never non living assembling into life? ever!!..francis crick and fred hoyle both have said abiogenesis is mathematically impossible but still stubbornly were atheist ..you also have ZERO Testable repeatable chemistry to back up abiogenesis..no one has ever been able to assemble amino acids into anything.which should be simple..primitive cells never existed
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory in the sense that anyone claims to understand it. of course life come from life.. thats how evolution works. If life randomly popped into existence all the time than evolution would not work the way we know it does. We all want to know how life began. It one of the deepest scientific mysteries. Still just because its a hard question doesn't mean that appeasing your curiosity by accepting fairy tails is the right course of action.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
@Aprilshowersss
You think chemicals are just put into a test tube and you have RNA LOL..everything is? carefully watched at just the right TEMPERATURES!!! activated..with subunits to start it and bases along with million dollar synthesizing machines.to COPY information just to get it started!!!..these are CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS!!! How dumb can you be?.. RNA arising...LOL more like plagiarizing information ..cut? and paste MORON!!!...LOL!..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv I never said I think chemical thrown in to a test tube just become RNA... RNA has to evolve. Synthetic RNA is being made. Im not sure how they do it and I fairly sure it is done with already existing RNA protiens... but I'd have to study the subject more deeply to be sure.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
@Aprilshowersss You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes to make a cell..the paradox is..In order for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv About your paradox... The opposite is correct. A natural process if one of the only ways to get a symbiotic relationship in nature. One that appears to depend on the very things that depend on it. Systems that will break if just one piece is missing, ie an "irreducibly complex" system... that's another way of putting it. These things evolve slowly.. and end up different than they were in the beginning. NOW they are dependent on each other completely, but it was not always so.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
@Aprilshowersss Even with all the Proteins and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube. to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@5tonyvvvv The study of DNA and life in general is mind bogglingly complicated and no scientist worth his salt claims otherwise. No one has all the answers but we learn more all the time. We can currently build simple dna structures and crates very very simple life forms.. but nothing near a multicellular creature.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aprilshowersss If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell.
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv RE:" If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, they would still have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and amino acids that are outside of a cell." This is so wrong it makes me sad.
Aprilshowersss 1 year ago
Well its all up to which historian you ask. Because matthew mark luke and john were written by themselves. And each one of them died a martyrs death excluding john. So they were all writtien before they were killed and none of these men lived more than 50 years after christ died. So yeah its all up to which historian you believe thats why Christianity is a faith based religion.
PsAntonio75 1 year ago
7:45
Yes, people with advanced degrees in a subect know more than those who have little knowledge of that subject.
If you want to call that dumb vs smart then so be it. But its true.
Only an anti-intellectual would claim people with advanced degrees know nothing.
g12er 2 years ago
awesome!!!
G5macintosh 2 years ago
"This assumes ancient man was dumb and we need modern Gurus to tell us what God's word means. (Cults get started this way.)" Seven seconds later he says, "Folks, let me interpret that for ya."
Even if you think he's refering to interpretting the scientists' words instead of God's Word, isn't everything he says about the Bible "interpretting God's Word"? Even if he thinks he's interpretting it correctly, he IS interpretting it for other people to TEACH them.
So I guess people need Gurus.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
So plants aren't alive because they don't have souls. Are my guinea pigs alive?
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
better watch video #7 and find out i guess:)
simplesamuel 2 years ago
Part 7 was even funnier than part 1! No mention of guinea pigs or their souls.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Gorteen-, he mentions that plants aren't alive, however animals are, if everything he says about plants is proof they aren't alive, then the exact opposite means it is alive (simple enough)
So he says plants don't breathe, have blood or souls, so the opposite applies to animals and man. :)
PFC33 2 years ago
The problems with this are: 1. Plants are alive... until they die. 2. Plants certainly respire, which is what breathing allows us to do. (I agree they dont have 'blood', but most have vascular systems for the transport of metabolic products. I certainly agree they don't have souls, but don't know how you could test for that.) 3. Not all animals breath. Insects don't breath, and they are animals. 4. Insects don't have blood.
Put simply, Hovind is wrong as usual.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
That's similar to putting words into someones mouth, man decided that plants die because they whither and decay. Insects breathe through their skin and their blood is called haemolymph which is much different to human blood, but it's still blood.
Weird topic: Scientists said that someone was on some sort of scale when they died and the moment they did, they lost 3 pounds. Now I would say it would be all the cells dying, but some say it's the soul, who knows, but if anything it helps my case lol
PFC33 2 years ago
Hmm. Using the biological definition of 'living', plants are alive. If you wish use the definition: living = having blood, you are welcome. It isn't a very good definition though, as any dead animal still containing blood is by definition still living. You could, of course, re-define 'dead', but it couldn't be: dead = having no blood, could it?
"Scientists said"? Where is your reference?
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Your misreading my words, that which is living has blood(1), a soul(2), and has the breath of life(3).
My reference for many things that leads to facts upon research is the Bible, it's never been wrong once, and by that reasoning, is never going to be wrong.
PFC33 2 years ago
Now it's clear, apart from the impossibility of testing for a 'soul'.
Compare 1 Kings 4:26 with 2 Chronicles 9:25. This is one of nuerous contradictions within the Bible. If you think that the Bible has 'never been wrong once', you obviously haven't studied the Bible, or anything else.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Read it carefully. 1 Kings says, "Solomon had 40,000 stalls OF horses FOR his chariots," That's how many horses he had FOR the chariots. 2 Chronicles says, "Solomon had 4000 stalls FOR horses AND chariots," They had 40,000 stalls for horses, and then had 4,000 stalls for the horses AND chariots together. They had 10 horses per chariot.
The chariot was the tank of that day. If you only have one horse, and it gets injured/killed, you're stuck. However, if you have 10 horses, your alright.
PFC33 2 years ago
10 horses per chariot? If one out of 10 gets killed you're stuck, as the other nine fall over the dead one.
However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, if only for the mental image it conjours up...
Try reconciling Acts 2:17 and 18 with Matthew 27:5. That should be good for a laugh!
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
For your benefit I'll explain that it doesn't contradict itself, but I'm not going to go all day on 100's of verses of how they "contradict" one another.
Acts 1:18 describes what occurred AFTER Judas hanged himself in Matthew 27:5. His body began to decay as it hung from the rope. Eventually, his corpse fell and burst asunder when it hit the ground, he literally burst apart.
The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, the way it's worded and styled is different to todays way and is confusing - KJV
PFC33 2 years ago
I was right! it was good for a laugh. However:
Acts 2: 18 Now this man purchased a field.... (hard to do when you've hanged yourself in matt 27:5)
Matthew 27: 5 And he cast down the pieces of silver at the temple...
Matthew 27: 7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field...
Yeah, maybe he bought the field with other money, blahblah blah. But 'falling headlong' doesn't begin to suggest a rotting corpse falling from its noose. The Bible frequently contradicts itself.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Exactly... Acts 2:18
"NOW this man..."
It's stating "now he HAD purchased a field after he hung himself"
Don't make this complicated, it's confusing the way it's worded but it's not contradictory.
I'm done, I've made my point, you can find all the "contradictions" you want and look them up on Google if your curious, but ONLY in the King James Version. The others have flaws in them. KJV is the only one that's truly accurate.
PFC33 2 years ago
ROFL. That was exactly my point: it is stating "now he had purchased a field after he hung (sic) himself."
Yes, I like the KJV, but why would you think it truly accurate? Surely the works from which it was translated would be more accurate.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
The verse is giving a summarization as to what has happened. That's all it is, you have to read it carefully.
"Now he "HAD" purchased a field..."
Would it make sense to say that you "had" purchased something on eBay after it was done? That's all it is, it was also written in dead tongue. Throughout the whole Bible it seems strangely worded but that's the way they spoke.
And it is NOT wrong. Never has, that's why I believe it's accuracy. There is 1 scribal error in there but that's human error
PFC33 2 years ago
I really don't understand this unjustified belief in Biblical inerrancy. I can cope with Christianity - in its broadest sense - but to claim, like Hovind, that the Bible is inerrant is absurd.
Just out of interest, do you keep Satruday as the Sabbath, like the Bible says?
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Point out a flaw in the Bible, any flaw I'll be happy to explain to the best of my ability that it's true (KJV)
Do I personally keep Saturday as the Sabbath? Yes, I actually do, others don't but there is no obligation for it.
PFC33 2 years ago
Re: Sabbath. There was an obligation to keep Saturday as the Sabbath until Collosians was written. The penalty for breaking this was being stoned to death. Aren't you glad we live in enlightened times?
Re: Flaws in the Bible. Are we sticking solely to contradictions within the Bible, or contradictions between the Bible and, say, science, history etc? Either way some explanation of Deuteronomy 25:12 would be interesting.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
"There was an obligation to keep Saturday as the Sabbath until Collosians"
--All animals and man were also created to be vegetarians only, but later we were allowed to eat meat. Your point?
There are contradictions with the Bible "against" science because science is wrong. The Bible itself is not wrong and without self-contradictions. What about Deuteronomy 25:12?
PFC33 2 years ago
My point is that this is a contradiction. The same applies to various foods proscribed in the Old Testament but allowed by one passage in the New.
If the Bible is right then history is wrong as well as science, although I'm convinced that pi isn't 3.
Deut 25:12 is vile and ridiculous. Surely a loving God wouldn't have put that in his holy book?
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
There are no contradictions in the Bible, that being said I'm not going to interpret 100 contradictions you give me, if you want an answer you can easily look it up online, I'm sure you'll find it.
God is loving but he gives you free will. You know what's right and wrong, if you intentionally choose wrong knowing the consequences then your going to be punished. This is parenting. He's our father, he created us, he has the right to punish us when we do wrong.
PFC33 2 years ago
There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible. It contradicts itself, almost all science and common sense.
Genesis 30:35 - 40 is just rubbish.
So my father has the right to punish me? Perhaps, but eternity in hell is an infinite punishment for what can only be finite crimes. If you want to justify this immoral threat, you're welcome, but brace yourself for the inevitable laughter.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Look it up online dude, I just said that, I'm not going to interpret 100 "contradictions" you give me. type the verse in with the word "contradiction" and you'll find the solution.
He has set a perfect example in a book that's never been wrong and he has made it extremely simple. Why wouldn't he punish you for eternity for a lifetime of disobedience? If you murder 10 people, taking their lives, does it not seem reasonable to serve a life sentence if not death? His laws are easy, just follow it.
PFC33 2 years ago
Punishment for crime? That sounds fair. I know that many states in the US have the death penalty, but it is not usually applied for jay-walking. Why? because most people know that the punishment should fit the crime. Eternal punishment for finite crime? No, that is not perfect. It is sick. It means that the vast majority of people on Earth, reagrdless of the type of life they have led, will suffer the fate of being burnt for eternity by a 'loving god'; one they might know nothing about.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
I'm not gonna go all day on this, I've given explanations, all your doing now is making scenarios of "why should we suffer for this or that"
We are told what to do, we are told what is right from wrong, the right way is very simple and is very beneficial. Disobedience, purposely, is a struggle and if you forcefully push against what he is telling you to do then you will be punished, this is not a finite crime, your spending your whole life resisting Him. That's all I have to say, I'm done
PFC33 2 years ago
No, you haven't explained anything. You have merely regurgitated your dogma. You claim; "science is wrong." Well, of course you would have to if you think the Bible is inerrant. Have you used a computer recently? Watched the TV? Had an X-ray? Been inoculated? Put gas in the car? None of these things would be possible without 'wrong' science. So, while you keep believing in absurdity, I'll keep laughing at you.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Lol you can laugh all you want, I do it quite often :)
Also, science has no place when it comes to origins unless they create a time machine to go back into the past to study it. There is no actual evidence for evolution, until they have some, I'm not interested in it. Computers, X-rays, and cars all have to deal with todays time, not origins. Science is testable/observable things. You can't test the origin of life, if it happened, it only happened once and you can't observe that.
PFC33 2 years ago
You forget that computers, cars etc. are made from minerals and oils. Geologists find these. The same geologists who show that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
Evolution (not the origin of life) has been observed, is testable and has overwhelming evidence to support it. You don't have to observe something to deduce what happened in the past! If you find a tree in full leaf lying on its side with its roots in the air, are you claiming no-one can tell it fell over? Really?
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Oh I believe evolution, Micro-evolution. That is the only thing that happens and that's all scientists observe, they never see 1 thing changing into another.
Let me ask you this. If evolution were true, then why don't we find fossils with "deformed" fishes? frogs with 6 eyes? horses with fingers? reptiles with hooves? Why does everything "only" have 4 legs, or 2 legs, 2 arms(animals) why 2 eyes? Why 1 tail? Why don't we find some pretty fucked up creatures?
PFC33 2 years ago
The reason amphibians, reptiles, birds and mamals have four limbs and one tail is because they have a common ancestor. This is the central tenet of evolution. We don't find horses with fingers, but ancestral horses had five toes. What is a deformed fish? Tiktaalik was a fish, but with eyes frontally placed. A deformity? Yes. A useful one? Yes. Hooves first appeared in mammals, so their descendants are hooved, not their ancestors.
A six eyed frog would pretty much destroy evolution...
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
The evolution of horses has been proven wrong around 50 years ago, that's what I dislike about evolution, the lies that support it.
What's so ridiculous about amphibians moving onto land is they would have to have a complete systems change in muscle, breathing, bones, everything, this change, when in an intermediary phase, would not be able to swim or walk on land. How would a fish even start to change into a land animal? It has all it needs in the water, it doesn't care about land conquest
PFC33 2 years ago
Horse evolution has not been proven wrong.
If you want an example of a fish which can move on land and breathe through its skin, take a look at mud-skippers. They also swim!
From this we can conclude that there is nothing ridiculous about fish starting to change into land animals, as we can see examples of just such creatures today.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
I'll give you mudskippers, although it's still bound to the water. However horse evolution has been proven wrong, so have about 20 other basic lies that hold up evolution in the textbooks in schools today. The fact that they still print the books with it in there astounds me. But yes horse evolution has been proven wrong around 50 years or so ago. (give or take a decade or 2)
PFC33 2 years ago
Sigh. What '20 lies'? If you like I'll grant you that everything believed about horse evolution is wrong.
But evolution explains why mammals develop a yolk sac in utero: Creationism doesn't. Evolution explains why humann embryos grow a coat of hair around the 6 month stage, though this is usually lost before birth. Creationism doesn't. Evolution explains why some humans are born with tails; Creationism doesn't. Evolution explains why most species are extinct. Creationism doesn't.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Even if horses grew to be something bigger than what they are now, it's still a horse, but for example, the "ancestor" of the modern horse is said to have 16 ribs, the next horse in the chain is said to have 18, but then the third is said to have 19, and todays modern horse has 18. (Note: i'm not 100% accurate on the exact numbers but that is the pattern it takes) That's not evolution
Also those are all examples of micro-evolution, it varies within it's kind, mammals will never produce birds.
PFC33 2 years ago
Well, I agree that mammals will never produce birds. If they did, that would destroy evolutionary theory. Vertebrates will never produce non-vertebrates. quadrupeds will never produce non-quadrupeds, and if you're wondering about snakes and legless lizards, they're still quadrupeds, or most of them. This is what the fossil evidence suggests.
As for ribs: duplication of things like ribs and digits is genetically controlled. Some humans have 6 fingers per hand; they're still human.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
And yet some scientists say that from the lack of evidence, it's possible that evolution was quick (reptile produced a bird) since there wasn't a transitional form.
And those humans that have 6 fingers never pass it on, it's a classic example that evolution cannot happen. Mutations are a scramble of what's already there in the genetic code, it already has the information to produce a finger, but it will not pass on 6 fingers because it's not a part of the original coding, just a misreading
PFC33 2 years ago
But there are transitional forms between therapods and birds. Starting with feathered dinosaurs, through confusciusornis etc. Some chickens have teeth, which means the genetic information for growing teeth is found in chickens, but it isn't usually activated. Evolution explains this. Creationism doesn't.
The gene for six fingers is dominant, meaning a parent with one copy will pass it on to 50% of his/her offspring. I've no idea why it's dominant, or indeed why any genes are. Curious.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
We've also found dragonflies with 50 inch wingspans, 13 foot tall human skeletons, 12 foot tall birds, cattail plants 60 feet tall, buffalo horns indicating they were twice their size today (and much more). Creationism explains this, Evolution doesn't.
You can say something explains something but there's only 1 answer and it's through reasoning we can figure this out. If evolution says we're getting bigger and smarter, my example disproves that altogether and promotes creation.
PFC33 2 years ago
are you on crack? 13ft tall humans?
Creation only explains one thing: GOD DID IT. Creationism is circular, the only evidence is in a book written by man 2000 years ago. Do you follow anything else written 2000 years ago? why dont you use medicine from 2000 years ago and stop using the current health care system when you get sick??
Creationism is for people who blindly follow a bunch of con artists (including Kent Hovind -- in jail now).
arp76 2 years ago
No I'm not, scientists hide this information as well as they can legally because the 300(est.) skeletons found disprove evolution too well
The Quran was written by 1 man (technically his friends wrote down his words he spoke) the Bible is written by numerous individuals who eventually put all the pieces together, Jesus came into the world, examined the book and said it had not been perverted by man. I'll be glad to talk about this, but if your just trying to bash it, take it somewhere else
PFC33 2 years ago
scientific reference please on these 300 skeletons that happen to be 13 feet? Did they play in the NBA?
so sorry, you think Jesus came back and proof read the bible too?
arp76 2 years ago
As aforementioned, if your going to just simply find any way to bash Christianity or Creation, take it somewhere else, I'm not interested.
As I mentioned earlier, it's very well hidden, there's no website that has that specific story on the 300 skeletons that I can find just with Google, however if you want, you can type into Google "steve quayle charts" and click the first link, that'll give you a bit of information on the topic. The biggest skeleton found was around 5 times bigger than normal
PFC33 2 years ago
Who the hell is Steve Quayle? Where did he do his Biology degree? Or did he go to Med school?
I'm not bashing Christianity, you said Jesus came back and proof read the bible. I just want to know where you get your drugs, if you think thats true. Cause I need some of that stuff to make the pain of this debate go away.
arp76 2 years ago
It doesn't matter where he got his degree because all the teachings today boil down to evolution and is invalid in this discussion.
The Bible has never been wrong once, science books have at one point or another, why should we trust science over the Bible? Also, stop bringing up the drug thing, it's not making you look any better, it makes me think your a 5 year old with low immaturity so please stop.
PFC33 2 years ago
It sure does. Lets put it this way -- If Steve went to Patriot Bible university and got a medical degree, would you like him to perform open heart surgery on you?
arp76 2 years ago
Can you tell me why Matthew and Mark are inconsistent in:
- Matthew 20:29-34; and
- Mark 10:46-52
how many blind men does Jesus heal on his way to Jericho? One or two? Matthew and Mark seem to think differently on this one -- so your comment about the Bible never being wrong once is not looking very valid right now.
arp76 2 years ago
Yes the Bible is and has never been wrong, I knew you'd try and do something like this however I'm not going to answer the 100's of alleged contradictions you give me, i'll explain this one but I'm sure if you type it in Google you'll find the answer.
When two people describe the same event, one my include details the other would not. Matthew mentions two, while Mark and Luke only speak of the more prominent one. Mark and Luke go into more detail on the name.
PFC33 2 years ago
right. so its inconsistent rather than wrong. thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
arp76 2 years ago
Stop dismissing what I say, you apparently wanted to say something against me from the beginning and I can understand that, but dismissing and bashing what I say is why I'm not continuing this conversation any further.
Come back when your ready to discuss the subject in a mature manner, I'll be ready to answer any questions you want to ask
PFC33 2 years ago
come back when you get a university education - in my case I have 3 degrees. Two Bachelors of Science and a Masters in business administration.
arp76 2 years ago
And that's excellent, however it has nothing to do with what we we're talking about.
PFC33 2 years ago
it does actually.
It proves that someone with no education on a subject (i.e. you) is trying to argue a fruitless point, with no scientific backing and appropriate references, with someone who has an education in Life Science (and for that matter Computer Science and a Graduate degree on top of that) (i.e. me).
come back when you are educated.
arp76 2 years ago
Just because I'm right doesn't mean I don't have a degree.
Even if I did what does that prove to you? Why is it so important?
PFC33 2 years ago
lmao - just read your comment and figure it out yourself.
arp76 2 years ago
Oh I believe it's a very simple answer as well, but do enlighten me with what you think it represents.
PFC33 2 years ago
No not inconsistent just more revealing with each writer. The bible has a principle that says out of the mouth of two and three is a matter established. So with the four gospels in the new testament you are getting 4 witnesses each focusing on different aspects of Christs life.
PsAntonio75 1 year ago
p.s. I am not clear what your goal or argument is about , and I am not trying to further this argument in the comment section. I was just hoping to give you a better insight on the subject. And I would say to you that in your study of religion you have to have and open mind because as i stated earlier Christianity is a faith based religion. So if you cant take a leap of faith then it will never be a valid part of your life. Oh and sorry for being so long winded lol.
PsAntonio75 1 year ago
what? of course Christianity is faith based -- thats where you are closed minded. Why not believe in Vishnu or Ying & Yang? at least theres recorded archeological evidence for the Mahabharata occurring.
you can never look at science with an open mind if you want to prove a religion is right
arp76 1 year ago
Well as I said I am not sure what your really aiming to convey. but I can say that i am not trying to prove any religion is right. Every man must make a decision for himself on what they choose to believe.
PsAntonio75 1 year ago
OK just to let you know your first sentence makes zero sense. To be faith based means to believe in something you cannot see and that my friend is the farthest thing from being "closed minded."
scorchhunter 1 year ago
ok lets dumb it down a bit.
Religion means one way of thinking. one way of thinking equals close minded.
example: God created heaven and Earth. Therefore nothing else matters -- not even evidence...even though:
arp76 1 year ago
Yes well you obviously are in dire need of understanding a very basic, very fundamental aspect of Christianity and that simple truth is this. What the Bible says, proven or not, taken in faith, is the only true thing anyone can believe in. Believing in THE TRUTH is not closed mindedness it is AWARENESS. An awareness that will, in the end, saves our souls from an eternal 2nd, never ending, death in Hell. I pray for you dear arp76 may God bless and keep you in good health and happiness.
scorchhunter 1 year ago
I don't need your Godbless nor your pity. I pity you for wasting your life on that nonsense. believing one version of something is CLOSEMINDEDNESS and NOT awareness.
arp76 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). How did plants survive before the sun?
2) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). How is there light without a sun?
arp76 1 year ago
bible thumpers still dont care -- bible is true no matter how basic the evidence is
arp76 1 year ago
I was just browsing through these videos, just checking out was this hovind guy has to say, and i just saw your comment. I believe your answer can be found in Luke 18:35-43. Each writer makes emphasis on other parts of the story. Almost like if we both saw the same event take place but i talked about a specific part and you just generalized the whole story. i hope that answers your question.
PsAntonio75 2 years ago
If you are claiming that all these creatures were created by an omnipotent being, it is curious that they are all now extinct. All the above are explained by evolution. I don't believe there are 13' human skeletons, because science isn't bound by dogma.
Evolution doesn't say we are getting bigger and smarter, because the only criterion for evolution is that more offspring are produced than survive to maturity, and those which survive tend to be better adapted than those that don't.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
I love these videos that so full of great information AND EVIDENCE :)))))
Evidence is always a good thing :D
TheLORDismySheperd1 2 years ago
ultradevon04 is right, you can find everything he says disproved and debunked.
ThatGuyOverThere428 2 years ago
you can disprove or debunk anything depending on how far you're willing to stretch the truth
simplesamuel 2 years ago
I hope all of you know that EVERY so called scientific evidence that hovind uses to support his claims have all be refuted!!!
ultradevon04 2 years ago
No they haven't.
Samson25877 2 years ago
Kent Hovind can be spotted thruout this video.
HadesOnEarth 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Facts why Kent Hovind CANNOT be lying:
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused, proud, or lying yourself.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
He uses nothing but scripture to make his points. Where is the science. It's not science just because you say it is Mr. Hovind.
jpayne68177 2 years ago
Well, hes talking about the garden of eden, mentioned in the bible so ofcourse he's going to use scripture. If you don't want so much scripture whatch the age of the earth.
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
2nd, science has a lot to do with the bible. When historical documents are tested by reliabitlity, they are put through 3 tests (internal, external, and bibliographic test) Archeologists say that the amount of archeolgoical data that supports the bible is so overwhelming, and the bible passes all three of those tests BETTER than any other document. science isn't Evolution. evolution is a theory and science is trying to understand the world and why things happen etc so scripture passes as science
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
"science has a lot to do with the bible"
No, science has nothing to do with the bible. I didn't see anything in the bible about evolution, or the earth being billions of years old. And certainly nothing about the billions of galaxies we know about today.
This is like us talking about child birth, and your on the side of the stork theory. It turns out you came from your mothers uterus. The truth isn't always as pretty as you wished it was.
jpayne68177 2 years ago
the bible has nothing to do with science. The bible is a group of stories pulled together by a bunch of uneducated men who lived 2000 years ago -- think about it. these were the same people who sprinkled lead into their wine to make it taste better!!!!!!
you are right "Science is not Evolution"
EVOLUTION is part of SCIENCE.
Evolution is a scientific theory -- the highest level of "scientific truth" is a scientific theory.
arp76 1 year ago
He went through the scientific aspects in seminar 1 if you're interested. This one obviously is the scripture aspect.
TeeKwug 2 years ago
Too bad there is no scientific aspects to creationism. Saying "god did it" isn't science.
jpayne68177 2 years ago 2
science is man made.
Samson25877 2 years ago
God is man made
arp76 1 year ago
umm.. day 1 was light- there was sun before anything else! thank you- ive been tryng to have an open mind, and i have made my judgement. Charles darwin admitted himself that evolution is impossible, and i have a relationship with Jesus, so I know that creation is possible. thats my judgement- not to force it on anyone else, but to hope your sane enough to see evolution is a big ecuse for their not being a creator- where did the matter come from? how come the prophecies in the bible are true????
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1) Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). How did plants survive before the sun?
2) God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). How is there light without a sun?
arp76 1 year ago
I really hate Kent Hovind he is scientifically stupid but likes to pretend hes not... hes a liar and has been known to be one and is closed minded and full of propoganda. Guys if you really want to know about the gap theory watch Bigwhammyrocks video... Age of the Universe: What does the bible really say
Parkrose21 2 years ago 3
if you want to know what the bible says-
read it!
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
I did but you should be more open minded to how you interpret the bible. How can there be a day one through four without a sun? The earth would not rotate and have an evening and a morning wthout a sun. Just watch the video wih an open mind. Youll be surprised what the bible says. Ive already looked at this young earth theory with an open mind and its not possible. Please at least do the same. Watch the other video with and open mind... Then make a judgment.
Parkrose21 2 years ago
Is this a joke? Kent, either way it is impossible. If there was no Sun, temperatures would be almost Absolute Zero. That means, 24 hours, 2 million years, it doesn't matter....impossible. What an ignorant fool he is.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
and so it seems way impossible to believe what kent hovind says.... well evolution is JUST as much as a religion as creation and christianity is- you need faith to believe in it :)
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
No mam, you don't. There is actual, physical evidence of evolution. Evolution does not cover origins. Also, Kent is simply scientifically illiterate on many different issues and levels. He is a liar mam, he lied in federal court too.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
but ill actually thank you for beng respectful anyway. You dont get much of that aroud here, and eve though we believe different things, atleast it can be a discussion and not an arguement. Im 13 though, so you dont have to call me mam, but thanks anyway!
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
I see, well it's good to be interested in these things young, rather than apathetic as so many are, even adults. I am sorry but the earth can not flood. You're 13 so I understand you are what, just starting high school in a year or two...? It is not your fault that such a prospect seems reasonable, Kent has no excuse. See, the earth's water cycle is a closed system. It wasn't always, no way, however, 6,000 years ago; even 4,400 years ago, yes it was. We wouldn't be having this chat otherwise.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
heres one example, i was whatching a show and they mentioned that some rock thing proved there had been some sort of (scientific word) well we looked it up, and it was the scientific term for a worldwide flood! because we weren't there for either theorys we need faith to believe in them, which means they aren' necerssarily fact.
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
There is not enough water to flood the planet, if there was, this would be a water world ALL the time. Lets pretend that is did magically appear though and all this dry land was carved out and destitute. Well, it still would be. It would simply evaporate only to fall elsewhere. There is no atmospheric evidence to the contrary. The density of earth precludes this to be impossible.
Joseph565112 2 years ago
ahh, but there you are wong :) you see, i know my bible. It says in the very beginning of genesis 1:2 it says, and the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was hovering over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters' so there was water, just not on earth. i may be young but i can see this makes perfect sense. Kent hovind didn't make me believe in this stuff, it was my knowledge. I think the real issue is no one wants anyone to tell em what to do.
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
Thats what it really balls down to- but who wants to think they used to be some sort of soup that came to life anyway? and were did the matter come from? There are thousands of prophecies in the bible that came true and are coming true. I know it would seem hard to believe, but it makes a whole lot more sense! For someone young, even I couldn't be tricked by that! i would never believe that something happened out of nothing. a painting doesn't make itself. It needs an artist.
godsgirlonamission 2 years ago
Let me ask you something hun, according to Genesis, when did the Sun come about?
Also, one little thing. The Big Bang / Cosmic Creation Event (if you're a christian that accepts it occurred) provided for once and only once, enough energy to essentially break all physical laws. Regardless, if you want to pursue this, you have to then pursue "god's" origins or at least its nature in regards to the exact causation it used to attain the effect of the known cosmos. No such answer exists.
Joseph565112 2 years ago