Reading Ezekiel, there is no mention of the bad Cherub's riches. However I'd agree that god's love and gift of power are wonderful riches. Death before Adam's sin; of course not when speaking of people because the Bible clearly says in Romans 5:12 that death came to all men and that is all it says. Doesn't talk of other creations dieing after or before Adam's sin. I think that the Gap Theory is primitive but does have some merit if you consider god's time is one day as a thousand years
@balvear I brought it up because the verse means that the All Mighty has no problem with time and can manipulate it any way he wants or needs. This unfortunately flys in the face of Athiests since they, if they had that power, would undo much of history. They want Eden back and won't understand otherwise. Some disagree with whatever a Christian says so would disagree with this entirely. Now they would say they agree with some of it. Now they won't comment. Now they will. Etc. etc. etc..
Sneaky, corrupt people use short words that can be said quickly in order to fool the unwary--it's good case for home-schooling language to our children. Satan finds out common words used to describe him, so he simply describes himself by a different word when we meet him in person.
@buzzclick500 "Sneaky, corrupt people use short words that can be said quickly in order to fool the unwary" I took Psychology 105 in University and that is exactly how the Proff would lecture. Daydream for just a few seconds and the most important point for the Semester is missed. Suprisingly the apex to grasping the concept was in that missed point, kinda depressing.
Goliath lifted up his visor to get a better look at this young "punk" who was threatening him--last thing he ever did in this world. His unbelief got him killed. It's really important to believe and accept the truth when we hear it.
The first bad decision. Adam could have told Eve, "I don't know what you think you're doing, but you need to get rid of that thing. Did you you hear what God told us?!" "But, the snake said it was o.k...." "What's a SNAKE? Let's go find this creature, and have a little talk with it." Satan would have been OUT OF THERE.
They don't call it PASSion for nothing; it PASSes. Then, calm thought and evaluation can take over. The "killing of the 'first-born'--what's the first thing we feel when we hear something new, or encounter a situation unfamiliar to us...? PASSion. David was not passionate when he struck Goliath down--he knew exactly what he was doing, and calmly set about his task.
The "issue" of time is irrelevant, because, as Jesus Christ states, "To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day." Funny how that gets by so many people claiming knowledge of the Scriptures....SPIRIT KNOWS NO PASSAGE OF TIME. Pay attention, and prosper in God's love.
Thanks, but read that verse one more time. 1 Tim 2:14 says that he was NOT deceived. And it relates the "trangression" to Eve who WAS deceived. No, Adam had a dilemma and a decision to make. He would have never gave up that dominion for any other reason, but for the one he loved.
@pleonrhyme : Yes....for one, brief, fatal moment, he forgot to love the ONE who had CREATED him, and on a cheap deception at that. Yes, I can understand why God was upset with him. Love the GIVER, NOT the gift.
I love Brother Hovind and his ministry. But he is wrong concerning the Gap Theory. And the words "created" and "made" are NOT used interchangably. In the Hebrew, there are TWO DIFFERENT and DISTINCT words for them. And Genesis 2:3 says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created AND made." If those two words are the same, that is redundant. And I don't think the Holy Spirit was redundant when he wrote this.
@buzzclick500: Actually, Adam was not deceived AT ALL. He ate for a distinct reason--- because he HAD TO in order to stay with his wife, who had now fallen from perfection. "And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14) It was an act of LOVE, though it would cost him and the rest of humanity for the union. And God actually USED the situation (and had planned to use it) knowing that satan would tempt Eve.
@pleonrhyme : He was deceived by the PASSION of his flesh, or, as I like to say, "worship the GIVER, not the gift." Eve was a gift to Adam from God, in response to Adam's prayer; Eve had no fault whatsoever in the situation--Adam simply gave up his God-like condition to her(after he had been TOLD by God to stay away from those Trees). Actually, BOTH of them had been told, but Adam was in charge, because he was there FIRST.
@pleonrhyme : Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: the center of the target which is our Bible--most people won't go near it, because it's concentrated truth, and most people just can't handle that. Jesus removes all "philosophical" argument and contention.
The Bible does try to be somewhat universal but yes it can be translated into any language as long as the meaning stays the same. Adam may have knew a bit more but both Eve and Adam were deceived even thought it went through them one at a time, but they both were tempted and made the wrong choice. It isn't so much that Adam knew so much more than Eve, it was Eve that was the first.
Yes God did tell to fill the Earth with people with cultures, with ideas and an entire tree of many different species of humans, yes humans did and were supposed to spread as far as possible. It' amazing how words in language have changed but it is all about covneying meaning so languages need to evolve, almost all recognisable languages and ours evolves so it is natural in the least to often do that.
I don't think if plants are alive and they dies that would really wreck the Bible that much that is just stupid to be that detailed and technical and pathetic to use reasoning like that. Plants most likely are alive even though I doubt there were carnivores even if some small animals died that is really not a valid argumant agaisnt the Bible, it is mostly but not exactly about what is life. Really think about it.
this is a good seminar one of the problems is that the angels and lucifer were already created not created at the same time as the earth. they were heavenly beings not earthly so that part i disagree with.
Laying the foundations of the earth is one of the deal breakers, the earth is not flat and there are no "foundations" when planets coalesce in a solar accretion disk, in reality that is.
@Joseph565112 you cant seriously be getting hung up because of the term foundations of the earth, which means the beginnings....please tell me you are kidding or that would just be kinda sad.
@bigus, I get 'hung up' on chapter one of the very first book; that is, the one that men decided to put into this collection known as the bible and all for their own purposes.
Since when does foundation mean beginning? You can't bullshit your way out of this, the earth has no 'foundation.' Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate that the notion of the earth having 'foundations' was rampant during the period in which the 'scriptures' were written.
so you must have a problem then with every single history book ever written by man because man wrote them all for his own purposes.the bible simply claims to be Inspired.but back to foundations.everything that is built has a beginning, and everything that is created or built has a plan or foudational basis for construction.some, like actual buildings BEGIN with the foundation or the base for the building to stand on.foundation is a descriptive word for beginnings.please dont play dumb.seriously.
@bigus, the 'bible' is the same as a history text...? Hardly.
The 'bible' claims to be the inspired word of a 'god' which is a monumental claim in and of itself.
Some things do have a foundational beginning, planets do not. I am not playing dumb, you are. Or are you saying that a 'god' should know less about planet formation than 401 years of planetary science accumlulated by mankind? Planets are not 'created' or 'built' like a building, don't be ridiculous.
actually historians use the bible for reference all the time so yea it is kind of a history book. so to archeologists and other scientists whether they believe in God or not. if you don't know that then there is no point for further discussion.i agree that the Bible makes a monumental claim, the question is, is it true or not? making the claim doesn't make it false. the term foundation used is a "discriptive" word describing the beginning or origins, was english or grammar part of your studies?
@bigus, indeed english was a part of my studies, although physics was my major. Sure, people use it in academia to critique it or to get a feel for what the people in the region were going through...far from a history text.
The text says that the foundations of the earth were laid - this coupled with a verse or two mentioning the earth having four corners, which it obviously does not, is cause for some alarm.
The 'bible' claims that the planet was 'created' and it wasn't.
please educate me on what you know of how planets are formed. you are getting hung up on semantics because you don't understand literary terminology or the use of discriptive words. the text is not claiming that earth or planets have a literal foundation like used in construction. i simply cannot believe you are THAT ignorant. im sure you are an intelligent person just trying to act like cannot understand english for whatever reason. im sorry i bought into it actually im an idiot for responding.
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
@slicingwater No, abiogenesis would require an infinite amount of time but by then your protein would break down and fall apart ..even if they did form what would protect them in a harsh primordial earth? ?..plus where is your molecular machines?..to assemble information??..proteins RNA? and DNA are completely useless without out the enzymes and cytoskeleton...major paradox..you have assumptions ..just like the scientists you look up to..that have really no clue how life started or evolved!!
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
@slicingwater "The Phonecians, The Chinese and the Babylonians must have been really surprised when god started creating the earth." You mean what exactly?
I've noticed that what he can't "prove" scientifically (even in a messed up or ad hoc sense), he "proves" with the Bible. Has he ever proven that the Bible is literal and not metaphorical? Or that it's right at all? Does he have any scientific, emperical evidence that can be studied, tested, and proven in a laboratory?
I'm not saying Christianity is wrong: I'm saying that he can't use something unscientific to make scientific points.
Yes he can, you can use what the bible says and compare it to our daily lives. You can also compare the bible to what we observe here on earth, whether science or not. So far everything matches up perfectly, you are just not looking for it.
Even if things in the Bible end up being scientific, the Bible was not created using the scientific method. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong; If you believe it is the Word of God then you obviously believe it to be the ultimate truth and I won't try to change your mind. But that doesn't make it scientific. If everything in the Bible was tested for scientific accuracy using the scientific method, THEN it would be scientific and accepted as evidence by scientists. Start with Numbers 5:11-31
Jesus himself studied the Bible and said it had been correct and not perverted by man, it was as it should be. It also contains prophecies that are coming true more and more every day.
So technically, yes he can use it as truth because all it contains is truth.
And only your faith in Jesus assures you that he is really who the Bible says he is. I'm not going to tell you if he is or he isn't, because that's none of my business. But the point is, it's not scientifically proven to be accurate and therefore has no place in scientific discussions.
Everything else in the Bible has been right, why not this? It's also not scientific to teach evolution.
The scientific method studies testable/observable evidence, there is no change today at all that we see, they would have to "assume" some things happened which then it jumps into religion. They need to stop forcing it down people's throats and let the person decide. I don't care if they're taught side-by-side, just give people a choice.
Everything else in the Bible has been right? Are you serious? Yes, I suppose you are.
And no, evolution is fact. We HAVE observed species evolving into other species both in nature and in the lab. And if you give me that "it's KINDS not SPECIES" stuff, then you're going to have to be a little patient with my IQ and give a more specific definition of "kind". Beyond that, we CAN prove things without observing them directly.
I wish I had more room to talk in one of these little comment boxes.
Again, this would be "variation." They are changing to suit their environment but they are still the same animal... (I would also like examples of what your saying) The bible says "they shall produce after their Kind" Dogs produce Dogs, Cows produce Cows, etc. they may have lots of hair, or no hair.. long tail, little tail.. but they are still the same animal.
If evolution is fact how long do you think it took for all of this to happen, I'd love to see your logic on this.
Thank you for your prompt reply. Here are some examples of species that we have directly observed coming from other species: Oenothera gigas, Primula kewensis, Galeopsis tetrahit, Madia citrigracilis, Mimulus guttatus, etc. If you want more, I can PM them.
I see that you've made examples of "kinds" but that doesn't really answer my questions. What is the definition? Does it have to do with ability to reproduce, physical appearance, location? What are the parameters? Let's start there.
When I say "Kinds" I simply mean, dog, cat, cow, plant, etc. No hidden meaning, there are different "species" of a kind such as what you mentioned above, but those are all still plants... They are not turning into a hamster.
You can get yellow flowers, tall flowers, thorny bushes, but they are all...plants. They are also not living, they do not have blood, the breath of life, or a soul.
Again, you're giving examples, not defining. So you've established that "kinds" are not species; that's a start. Are they Geni? Families? Orders? You're not giving a definition; just examples.
Ok, you define plants as not living: then I'll only focus on animals. All dogs are the same kind? So, are foxes in the same "kind" as dogs? Why or why not?
I don't know the mechanics down to the micro-meter, but the Bible makes it very clear, a dog is a dog, and a 'fox' is a fox, you have arctic foxes and fennec's. Both complete opposites, but they're both foxes. It's very simple, stop making it complicated.
Cow
Dog
Octopus
Fish
Human
Etc.
It's classified exactly as it says. There's no magic formula, the bible says it very simply. The whale today is classified as a mammal, in the bible, it is a fish, very simple.
I'm not trying to make it complicated; I'm trying to point out that the word "kind" is not a scientific term. Therefore, it has no place in a scientific discussion. You pointed out just now that whales are classified in science as mammals, but in the Bible it's a fish; there's obviously a confusion between the two as to how to classify something. So, if science and the Bible are to discuss something, we've got to agree on terms...Isn't that what Kent Hovind said?
I don't remember everything Kent Hovind says, I don't idolize him. As I said it's very simple. But perhaps I need a bigger list.
I really don't know how to make it simpler. Whatever it's basic name is, is a kind. As aforementioned, a arctic fox and a fennec are very different but they are both foxes and can be seen as foxes. Stop looking at this so complicated and look at it as a 5 year old would see it. Perhaps we don't understand what the other is thinking, but this is a brick wall here.
Ok, ok, THANK YOU! Finally, we have a definition instead of just an example. "Whatever it's basic name is, is a kind." THAT is something I can work with.
Taht's all I was asking for. It's not a biological answer, but it actually establishes the Creationist criteria. Also "think as a 5 year old would see it" helps...It doesn't speak well for your case, but it helps me understand where you're coming from.
But honestly, I'm not making it complicated; I'm making it spefic.
it would take me 1000 words to explain evolution in full but just settle for this:
evolution makes more sense due to many fossils, carbon dating, observations, logic, DNA biochemistry etc...
God works for people because its much easier to comprehend: big guy makes all. seriously there is nothing more to it than that, that is fully in context - an omnipotent being made all.
Fossils can't prove anything, they really can't, I can line up a knife, to a spoon, to a fork and say that's how they evolved, am I right? Well I need a missing link, but then I find a spork, now I can prove it.
Also Carbon Dating has been flawed since the beginning and at max can only determine around 30,000 years since the Geiger counter would become too indistinct in clicks to work after that.
God gives a lot more evidence for many things today than evolution ever does if you ask me.
look dude, i honestly dont want to be too insulting here but if god explains things easier to you than that is pretty much a testament to your lack of intelligence. Creation is much simpler than evolution and that is the only reason it has the numbers of support it has today.
Your not, but I love information and it's why I put up my beliefs on videos such as this to draw people like you in a conversation. :)
Creation explains more than evolution does, it may be more complex but even if evolution was proven as a possibility (which is the most it can be proven to since we weren't there in the beginning) there are much more problems needed to explain it. What made you go to evolution and leave creation?
Creation is simpler to explain problems because I think it's right.
Your mistaken, I'm referring to history, we cannot piece together exactly what happened in history unless someone was there to witness it. There happens to be a book that gives us an account of what happened in the beginning, I believe it's called the Bible
Now sure, you can put the rough chunks of the puzzle together and say "this looks like it fits" however there are some missing parts of the edge which are inconclusive. We can assume this happened, but we don't know, it is only a possibility
I disagree. Humans cannot know anything to an absolute, and must therefore rely on probabilities. All history is like this, including witnessed events, as eyewitnesses are well known to disagree on even basic facts.
Also history is written by the winners, and so any claim from a historical source must be taken with a pinch of salt. The Bible is a historical text and should not therefore be exempt from the same scrutiny, especially when it makes claims that aren't witnessed in reality.
The very first sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. You can rely on probabilities all you want but you will never know 100% - exactly what I'm saying. Eyewitness are actually seeing something however they view it a different way, the bottom line being that they were there. No one was there when humans came to be so we cannot draw any 100% conclusions, only plausibilities.
Witnessed in reality? The Bible was written by over 100 people who witnessed a majority of that which is in it...
Then we are in agreement over probabilities. The differrence between us is that i consider evolution to be the most probable solution. There is direct evidence for evolution, whereas, as far as i am aware, there is none for creation that has not been explained to be inncorrect.
Since the only evidence for God comes from eyewitness reports, until he reveals himself to me directly, and identifies Himself as God (no cookies shaped like jesus), i shall continue to believe he doesn't exist.
As for the "not witnessed in reality" i should have been clearer. Since there is no evidence for anyone ever having risen from the dead outside the bible, the bible cannot be as enough evidence to consider raising the dead a natural phenomenon. Instead until someone is raised from the dead, cured of leprosy etc by someone else praying for them, and it is conformed as the only possible reason for it to have happened, such events must be considered as ficticious.
Because there has only been 1 Christ. He was God in the flesh, the only perfect man, there are none of those today so of course there's not going to be an accounts of it.
How do you know things today haven't been cured by prayer, have you interviewed everyone? Those with cancer have been cured numerous times, maybe people prayed for them as well. However prayer isn't the issue here, only Jesus was able to do such things, no one else has in the Bible; assuming that it can happen again is faulty.
You are mistaken. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, so that it is your responsibility to prove that people have been cured by prayer. It is not for me to waste my time talking to everyone on the planet to prove that it has never happened. For such claims, the default position should be scepticism.
As for Jesus being the only one able to perform miracles, how is it any different from the magic Harry Potter does? Maybe we should believe there are wizards everywhere too.
Plausible and probable are only different by degrees. Plausible could have happened, but isn't that likely. Probable means there is a high chance that it happened. Since we have agreed that our knowledge of anything is limited, probabilities are our only option.
As for I have to go to Him, it also means I have to contact every possible deity imaginable, as they all have followers somewhere, and all maybe true. This is analogous to the interviewing everyone; the burden of proof lies with you.
Finally, why do you believe something for which there is no evidence, and then criticise scientific theories, for which there is much greater evidence to think as being the reason why we are here. If you agree with me that there is no evidence outside of the bible, other than the experiences of a few people who report that they 'met' God, then what is the basis of your faith? There are any no. of gods and story book characters who you could believe in, so why is the Christian God different?
Again, as mentioned in my post below, if God is omnipotent what evidence does He need to prove He exists? He's had many witnesses when He was Jesus and they put it in a book, can you honestly believe what they put in your books? How do you know we didn't all just fall out of a black hole 5 million years ago and no one remembers? There was also only 1 perfect man as aforementioned, there's no testing that.
Why not believe Harry Potter? You believe evolution based off of a typed up book anyway.
The evolution that is in books has been confirmed by experiment, fossil records and also in the developments seen in everday life. Wheat rust, MRSA, swine flu etc. And before you say "that's micro-evolution, that's allowed", I will point out that the difference exists only in the minds of creationists. Darwin's theory doesnot make a distinction, and the arguement is analogous to "you are allowed to make a few small steps at a time, but can never cover a distance of a thousand miles".
Because it is micro-evolution, it's small minor changes within a species, it has limitations, we have never seen anything change into something entirely different. We have fennecs and arctic foxes, both adapted to the completely opposite environment, but they're both foxes
So just because Darwin doesn't mention it in his book means it's not true? Convincing.
Your "miles long distance" speech is flawed. Your assuming that we're at at the thousand mile mark, but we never even took the first step
No, Darwin didn't put it in his book, but not only that, no biologist alive (except for the creationists) make the distiction. Evolution take hundreds of thousands of years to form new species, and that is why we haven't observed it in the last 150 years since the theory was published.
If you agree that evolution can make changes within an individual species, then you cannot refute that evolution will lead to speciation.I also don't understand your objection to my analogy. Rephrase please!
It's not only absent from Origin of Species, no biologist alive (apart from creationists) make the distinction. If you agree that evolution can cause small changes in a species, you cannot refute that it will lead to speciation. Evolution takes thousands of years to form new species, that is why no new ones have been observed in the last 150 since the theory was published.
Also I don't understand your objection to my analogy. Could you please rephrase it?
Because biologists are taught with the preconceived idea that macro-evolution has happened and is why the things they study are changing. The Bible teaches micro-evolution as variations within a species, as the 2 kinds of animals left the ark they reproduced and made all the variations of kinds today
"No new ones have been observed" exactly, that's why it does not belong in science because it is the opposite of the scientific method.
Science is assuming we are in the era of all species evolved*
By "preconceived idea" you mean they are taught the best current understanding of the theory! Evolution belongs in science because whilst no new species have emerged (to my knowledge) in the last 150 years, the fossil records clearly indicate that speciation does happen, and it has therefore been observed to have happened in the past, which is scientific method.
If you deny the fossil record you ignore the data to suit your own beliefs. That is a preconceived idea.
The theory itself is flawed, wrong, inaccurate, whatever word you feel comfortable with, but it didn't happen. The fossil record is actually one of the biggest downfalls of evolution. If evolution took place there would need to be septillions upon septillions of fossils showing even more gradual change than those of today. There are enough fossils to support the flood of the Bible, not billions of years. There have been fossils found that go against evolution, but lets not pay attention to that
Fossilisation is a rare process. It can only happen if the conditions are perfectly correct. Therefore to expect such ridiculous numbers of fossils (a septillion is 10^24, 10x more atoms than there are in a mole) is a false expectation. Finding fossils is difficult, but of the ones we do have, it is clear that they show speciation. To expect more is to insight a form of Zeno's paradox.
Also, before the Cambrian explosion (580 million years ago), most creatures would not have been fossilised
As for the fossils that "go against evolution" provide examples. Sweeping statements without references won't cut it. You also haven't yet given an explanation as to why the theory is wrong.
Not really, if something is in a pressurized area (under a lot of dirt) and surrounded by water to exchange minerals with (I'll use the flood), it can happen pretty quickly, within a year max which fits in perfectly with the Bible account. Fossilization takes place when decay releases ions into the acidity of the environment necessary for the process. If something were taking so long (allegedly at least hundreds of years) it would have decayed/rotted away and would be nothing to fossilize.
If you actually read my comment again, I never said the process isn't quick, I know of sinkholes open to the public where they fossilise teddy bears in a few years. What doesn't fit with the bible account is the age of the fossils, which date to several millions of years. Your only objection could be to radio-carbon dating, which apart from not being the only method to measure the age of rocks (eg Rubidium-Strontium), disregarding it would require you to rethink how radioactive sources decay.
I understand and I even noticed when I first typed out my post and had to remake it. However I knew you were going to bring up the millions of years as you did in this post and since I had room, I decided to get a head start on it. And your right, my objection to the ages is the dating methods because that's the only thing objectionable. I'm aware of a majority the dating systems and how they work and they're either wrong altogether or wrong because of preconceived ideas or insufficient data
But why are they wrong? You haven't given a reason for it. Without specifiics I can't comment about why I think the 'preconcieved' ideas are correct. How much data would you require to have some of these methods be classified as legitamate?
Are you aware that carbon dating has been used on living or freshly killed animals and it has been anywhere from 8,000 to about 23,000 (I think) years old? I could explain why if you like.
Are you also aware that radiometric dates on lava flows in Hawaii 3-6 months apart have been dated millions of years apart?
None are legitimate because they are all wrong. If it can't give correct dates on recent events, how can it interpret the age of the past? It can't.
I'm intrigued, please continue. Explain why carbon dating on newly dead animals leads to such a large range of values. I know space on YT is limited, but this is new to me. Please explain.
Carbon dating works on the preconceived idea that C14 has stabilized (just as much C14 being made as decaying). They know that it takes about 30,000 years for this to happen so they didn't think anything of it. Well when such drastic/wrong numbers came up, they tested it and concluded that the Earth is only 1/3 the way through the cycle, this would mean Earth is less than 10k years old. Now since the amount in the air is different than their measuring device, they're going to get the wrong data.
Is it not true that Carbon dating is accurate only up to 12000 years ago as the concentrations of C14 fall too low to make an accurate analysis? In which case the 30 000 years is not an unreasonable time scale. For the age of the Earth, Uranium is used with the assumption that Helium that is released from the alpha decay is trapped in the rock. The amount ratio of them is then used to work out the initial number of Uranium atoms, and hence its half-life can be calculated. It's in the billions.
I'm not sure what your trying to say about the Carbon dating date accuracy, you'll have to clarify a bit more, although I'm pretty sure I have a general idea of what your saying. As for uranium dating, here's a few problems. For this method to work, they measure uranium and lead ratio (I'm not sure what you mean by helium, it decays into lead from what I've read) and determine the age by that, however the lead is a major downfall in this, first they don't account for the fact that some...(tbc)
...of the lead could have leached out or already have been mixed in there. Scientists tested a 300 year old rock and came back with 50m to 14.5b years old calculations. Also, lead is only an assumed end product for the decaying process. When a sample is tested, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is daughter-product lead. The specimen is not carefully checked for possible Common Lead Content, because it takes too much time. Yet it is that very U/Pb ratio which is used to date it
Rutherford proposed before the constituents of alpha particles was known that they could become trapped in the form of helium (alphas are helium nuclei). Since Helium isn't naturally present in rocks, measuring the U to He ratio tells us how many U atoms have decayed, hence how many there were. The half-life can then be calculated which comes out in the billions (U238 is 4.51x10^9). As for the lead method, it is assumed for ease of calculation that there was no lead present at the start...
...because as you said, detecting the lead is difficult, yet it has little effect on the proportion of the different elements, and hence the age of the sample and can therefore be safely ignored.
As for the Carbon, I meant that if the age of the Earth is established as billions, then the 30 000 years for the system of production versus decay to reach equilibrium is not at all long, and could easily be achieved. Also Carbon dating is not expected to be accurate beyond 12 000 years.
Um.. No.. We most certainly cannot. That's why they're called "miracles" because they can't be done naturally. We can't turn water into wine without an intermediate steps. We can't heal people instantly through touch. We can't bring people back to life once they've naturally passed on and we most certainly can't resurrect ourselves. Those are just a few to mention.
@PFC33 yes we can... and we can even do better. we could move mountains and bring back the dead, we could turn wine to water and back if we only but asked him. dude Jesus told us, gave us the Bread to doing greater works... he said we could do these things.. if ONLY we had faith the size of a " " seed. i forget which type .. but very small lol.
@CheyennedeLuna77 We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us, but that's "if" he approves of what we're doing. If we're trying to resurrect ourselves that would nullify his resurrection on the cross and thus would be worth nothing, so he wouldn't help us do that.
Just because he "can" help us do everything he did doesn't mean he will. You made it sound, from the beginning, like we could do anything Jesus did on our own, and we can't.
@PFC33 i dont think it would nullify his works... but even bring more glory to His name and the Father. If someone died saying God is going to bring me up again pshhhh and it happened... smh ... personally id think so much more people would see, it is possible, God is real and Jesus was His son. But yeah i didnt mean by ourselves.. lol not at all. and Thank you I;ll remember it a Mustered seed. and Def only and only if he gives the green light fr us to do such works. God Bless
@CheyennedeLuna77 If someone else was resurrected then that diminishes Jesus' resurrection. Jesus showed that he beat death, and as such we can put our faith in him and death will pass over us (spiritual death anyway). What's it say if someone else beats death? Who needs Jesus, we'll just follow that other guy that beat death for us.
@PFC33I see what your saying but The only way is Through Jesus...there are going to be many resurrected before around judgement .. but only by Jesus will this be possible giving more Glory to His name becaue without Him it would just be dust lol
@CheyennedeLuna77 I know, but why is it only through Jesus? Because he died for our sins. But if someone else dies for them, who needs Jesus?
Now, I can understand that if it's on the basis of God (partially, I'll have to study it a bit more), but there's no spiritual message to it as there was with Christ's, and therefore there would be no need for it. I'm primarily speaking on the basis of a non-Christian resurrecting, then it would nullify everything Christ did.
@PFC33 well im speaking inside the our religion, no one can die for sin but Jesus. the only reason for resurrecting another would be proof that it did happen and only through Jesus. I think it would serve as a great example " hey it happened before, im real, i died for your sins... and i let this guy/girl be an example for you "still i understand what your saying. If only there were people with such that i knew. very hard ... in the world id think very few
if anything I said I was against relying on probabilities, I said things were plausible; probable is completely different. There is more than enough evidence, especially for the flood, however keep in mind that "evidence" is the primary source for evolution. There's not much evidence for creation because, honestly, how can anything be proven that God did something if he's omnipotent? He can make gravity into gravy for all He cares
He will never reveal Himself to you, you have to go to Him first
Mr Hovind, I agree with almost everything you've taught and have enjoyed watching your videos, but I must point out what I believe is a flaw in your thinking. The earth and mankind was created in six days, but the angels and Lucifer were created a long time before we were.
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.
The first purely English alphabetical dictionary was "A Table Alphabeticall", written by English schoolteacher Robert Cawdrey in 1604. The only surviving copy is found at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.
@jpayne68177-And then i love reading comments from ppl like you who miss quote what he says to get ur point across. We call a person like that a deceiver n a lire. he said plants aren't alive in the Biblical term. Next time please don't embarrass urslf cuz there r those of us who actual listen to learn rather than listen to find faults (like u). Akuna Metata!!!!
love is a strong word sir. I didn't miss quote...he is claiming that plants are not alive. Everything he speaks and views is in line with the Bible. You know this guy is in prison for fraud right? The reality is that the world-view that this man possess is incredibly delusional. He talks about biology without having any understanding of biological science. Kent Hovind is a joke.....
@CheyennedeLuna77 seminar part 7 or the class series, at least watch the videos and give him a chance to defend himself... i don't personally agree but at least let him explain.
If god is real why didnt my earth in one day? I mean he is all powerful he could made earth in one second, right? If he is real than the bible is wrong or God is very stupid.
Because if god was all mighty he would just made it in one second. Sorry if I offended you, but why would take six days to make Earth that just doesn't make since to me. If you believe in god then good for you.
In order to have a world there has to be rules of science to hold it together. You are stumbling on the idea of, can God make something so heavy He can't lift it? That is satanic thought. You will worship in the near future. It will be for the real God or lucifer. If you can't see what is taking place right now you are blind. God created a beautiful balanced world for you to live in while man does everything to destroy it. Do you expect a baby in one second?
Someone said that God created time so everything doesn't happen all at once. He put the rules of science so everything has an order. You expect too much from God without giving Him anything in return. God doesn't need you, you need Him. But, you have bought the lie of no God. You buy evolution that makes no sense but it allows you to do what feels good with no guilt. When you find out you are wrong it will be too late FOREVER!
Wouldn't it be grand if his God came back to earth, created a few small miracles for verification, then say Kent has it right. Don't wait for it. Hovind's blasphemy against truth for the sake of his religion should be illegal.
"Kent Hovind's a fraud, a liar!" Oh, liar, shmiar; I've searched up nearly every article and proof he has presented and I have found absolutely NO flaw in them. He may seem "crazy" if he did have "tax frauds", or whatever, but at least he may know some reasonable stuff we don't.
PS: The Evolution theory is reasonably stupid; the Creation message is reasonable reasonable (and makes a whole lot more sense and meaning.)
No you didn't actually, who do you expect to buy this garbage?
You may be stupid enough to by Hovind's lie, but no one else with sense is.
I guess you uneducated fundamentalists thrive off of lying and quote mining to get a point across. I just don't understand how people can be so stupid, and to wear such stupidity as a badge of honor.
But anyways you read up on nothing to find out anything, you're just lying so that someone would come to you and start something.
Whats really ignorant he is so upset he took time out of his pathetic feeble life to comment on my vids which had nothing to do with the subject at hand......
"They conveniently forget that long ago all the galaxies and this very planet were brought into existence out of watery chaos by God's word. Then God's word brought the chaos back in a flood that destroyed the world. The current galaxies and earth are fuel for the final fire. God is poised, ready to speak his word again, ready to give the signal for the judgment and destruction of the desecrating skeptics."
Dear friend don't waste your time on these here. They don't want a God and want to be ignorant. Reminds me of the Forward in Darwin's Origin of Species 100th Anniversary:
Evolution is unproved and unprovable we believe it only because the only alternative is special Creation, and that is UNTHINKABLE(Sir Arthur Keith 1959)
It's funny, I have raised my son to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and he has the same exact conviction you have in Jesus and God. Hmmm, makes ya wonder...
You just gave me a response you dumb fuck. Secondly, TRY FINDING SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN THAT ACTUALLY LISTENS TO THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT THAT THIS CRIMINAL IS SPEWING! You must be ridiculously uneducated and STUPID. This is NOT debatable. What's it like being so dumb? Seriously, help me understand what it's like to be irrational, illogical, and brainless? Take a few minutes for your response. Later dipshit.
WOW...look at your limited vocabulary it is far beneath me to so much as give you another sec in my day.....You should learn the English language are at least Google some words and ACT INTELLIGENT.
I don't debate with self-confident fools who bases of argument are from finite knowledge. You don't believe DIE and SEE!!!
Don't waste your time I am done with this tautology called a comment your sending, however because your lonely and incoherent you will respond....HEY THAT'S JUST LIFE
I notice you haven't really defended anything I said, interesting....Seriously though, what's it like being incredibly stupid? What's it like knowing that EVERYONE with a brain and COMMON SENSE laughs at your beliefs? What's it like? I suspect you believe the earth is 6,000 years old right? ENOUGH SAID. I mean seriously, have you ever told anyone that in person, or are you too embarrassed to admit you believe in such ridiculous things? Funny how we both know your an idiot, isn't it? haha
This sorry excuse of man doesn't have anything to debate or is even worth your time of a response. He gave me ignorant misunderstandings of science. When they were debunked he began to get personal, or at least tried to.
Now this loser "Dumaka" goes around talking like everyone is beneath him and he even began to bother me again.
Lol.
This loser "Dumaka" is nothing but moron wrapped up ignorance, wishes, delusions, and conspiracy theories. Garbage at its finest.
No Son the real loser is You, The so called Common Sense you and the imbecile meatballs1945 proclaim- was easily left behind for a girl you desperately desired. So its all an act until a young lady steps in then you are willing to refute your belief for her.....desperate, lonely and ridiculous!
obviously your still up set we exchanged contact info and still communicate....Your still crying like children do...quite sad actually
Still trying to get personal, eh? Especially with no knowledge of the whole situation. Besides she doesn't even understand what I said to her, because she isn't as smart as you think.
So basically a rock told a dumb ass about how I felt, do you now see why that is so funny?
But continue to judge and assume because to this day you still don't have any facts as to why you believe in ignorance, loser.
And talking about my life with no knowledge on it. Now THAT'S sad.
It was you who did nothing but talk garbage and throw lame insults at me. It was you who thought it was a good idea to try to get personal in attempts to piss me off.
Don't try to turn this on me, and it's sad that you're actually trying.
Also, I'm still waiting on those facts that supports your ignorant belief. I'm still waiting on those facts that helps support bronze-aged biblical nonsense.
and this is coming from someone who cannot support biblical nonsense, yet believes in it faithfully. This is why we call fundamentalists like you dumb asses.
Nice Nice Video. I really loved your video. Youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed, check out this site called tubeviews [dot net] It has really done wonders for me, I have built 3 Channels up with videos at top in position and this is my forth channel i'm going to working on.
Reading Ezekiel, there is no mention of the bad Cherub's riches. However I'd agree that god's love and gift of power are wonderful riches. Death before Adam's sin; of course not when speaking of people because the Bible clearly says in Romans 5:12 that death came to all men and that is all it says. Doesn't talk of other creations dieing after or before Adam's sin. I think that the Gap Theory is primitive but does have some merit if you consider god's time is one day as a thousand years
mrwebber35 4 months ago
@mrwebber35 You're forgetting the second part of the verse. "... And a thousand years as a day."
balvear 3 weeks ago
@balvear I brought it up because the verse means that the All Mighty has no problem with time and can manipulate it any way he wants or needs. This unfortunately flys in the face of Athiests since they, if they had that power, would undo much of history. They want Eden back and won't understand otherwise. Some disagree with whatever a Christian says so would disagree with this entirely. Now they would say they agree with some of it. Now they won't comment. Now they will. Etc. etc. etc..
mrwebber35 1 week ago
Sneaky, corrupt people use short words that can be said quickly in order to fool the unwary--it's good case for home-schooling language to our children. Satan finds out common words used to describe him, so he simply describes himself by a different word when we meet him in person.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buzzclick500 "Sneaky, corrupt people use short words that can be said quickly in order to fool the unwary" I took Psychology 105 in University and that is exactly how the Proff would lecture. Daydream for just a few seconds and the most important point for the Semester is missed. Suprisingly the apex to grasping the concept was in that missed point, kinda depressing.
mrwebber35 1 week ago
Goliath lifted up his visor to get a better look at this young "punk" who was threatening him--last thing he ever did in this world. His unbelief got him killed. It's really important to believe and accept the truth when we hear it.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
The first bad decision. Adam could have told Eve, "I don't know what you think you're doing, but you need to get rid of that thing. Did you you hear what God told us?!" "But, the snake said it was o.k...." "What's a SNAKE? Let's go find this creature, and have a little talk with it." Satan would have been OUT OF THERE.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
They don't call it PASSion for nothing; it PASSes. Then, calm thought and evaluation can take over. The "killing of the 'first-born'--what's the first thing we feel when we hear something new, or encounter a situation unfamiliar to us...? PASSion. David was not passionate when he struck Goliath down--he knew exactly what he was doing, and calmly set about his task.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
The "issue" of time is irrelevant, because, as Jesus Christ states, "To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day." Funny how that gets by so many people claiming knowledge of the Scriptures....SPIRIT KNOWS NO PASSAGE OF TIME. Pay attention, and prosper in God's love.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
Thanks, but read that verse one more time. 1 Tim 2:14 says that he was NOT deceived. And it relates the "trangression" to Eve who WAS deceived. No, Adam had a dilemma and a decision to make. He would have never gave up that dominion for any other reason, but for the one he loved.
pleonrhyme 6 months ago
@pleonrhyme : Yes....for one, brief, fatal moment, he forgot to love the ONE who had CREATED him, and on a cheap deception at that. Yes, I can understand why God was upset with him. Love the GIVER, NOT the gift.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
@pleonrhyme : It's one of the reasons that most business partnerships fail at some point.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
I love Brother Hovind and his ministry. But he is wrong concerning the Gap Theory. And the words "created" and "made" are NOT used interchangably. In the Hebrew, there are TWO DIFFERENT and DISTINCT words for them. And Genesis 2:3 says "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created AND made." If those two words are the same, that is redundant. And I don't think the Holy Spirit was redundant when he wrote this.
pleonrhyme 6 months ago in playlist Apologetics
"To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day." --Jesus Christ
buzzclick500 7 months ago
@buzzclick500: Actually, Adam was not deceived AT ALL. He ate for a distinct reason--- because he HAD TO in order to stay with his wife, who had now fallen from perfection. "And Adam was NOT deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14) It was an act of LOVE, though it would cost him and the rest of humanity for the union. And God actually USED the situation (and had planned to use it) knowing that satan would tempt Eve.
pleonrhyme 6 months ago in playlist Apologetics
@pleonrhyme : He was deceived by the PASSION of his flesh, or, as I like to say, "worship the GIVER, not the gift." Eve was a gift to Adam from God, in response to Adam's prayer; Eve had no fault whatsoever in the situation--Adam simply gave up his God-like condition to her(after he had been TOLD by God to stay away from those Trees). Actually, BOTH of them had been told, but Adam was in charge, because he was there FIRST.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
@pleonrhyme : Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: the center of the target which is our Bible--most people won't go near it, because it's concentrated truth, and most people just can't handle that. Jesus removes all "philosophical" argument and contention.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
@buzzclick500; huh? um... ok. Thanks. ???
pleonrhyme 6 months ago
@pleonrhyme : I'm here to help in any way I can. ;])
buzzclick500 6 months ago
@pleonrhyme : Adam could have obeyed God, and had as many wives as he wanted--he goofed.
buzzclick500 6 months ago
The Bible does try to be somewhat universal but yes it can be translated into any language as long as the meaning stays the same. Adam may have knew a bit more but both Eve and Adam were deceived even thought it went through them one at a time, but they both were tempted and made the wrong choice. It isn't so much that Adam knew so much more than Eve, it was Eve that was the first.
RJL738 8 months ago
Yes God did tell to fill the Earth with people with cultures, with ideas and an entire tree of many different species of humans, yes humans did and were supposed to spread as far as possible. It' amazing how words in language have changed but it is all about covneying meaning so languages need to evolve, almost all recognisable languages and ours evolves so it is natural in the least to often do that.
RJL738 8 months ago
I don't think if plants are alive and they dies that would really wreck the Bible that much that is just stupid to be that detailed and technical and pathetic to use reasoning like that. Plants most likely are alive even though I doubt there were carnivores even if some small animals died that is really not a valid argumant agaisnt the Bible, it is mostly but not exactly about what is life. Really think about it.
RJL738 8 months ago
God is powerful enough to speak the universe into existence but needs a day of rest?
JMUDoc 9 months ago
Okay, having watching this one for the first time, plants aren't alive? Oi, I hope the Ents never get a hold of him.
Cardigen 1 year ago
this is a good seminar one of the problems is that the angels and lucifer were already created not created at the same time as the earth. they were heavenly beings not earthly so that part i disagree with.
bigus 1 year ago
Laying the foundations of the earth is one of the deal breakers, the earth is not flat and there are no "foundations" when planets coalesce in a solar accretion disk, in reality that is.
Joseph565112 1 year ago
@Joseph565112 you cant seriously be getting hung up because of the term foundations of the earth, which means the beginnings....please tell me you are kidding or that would just be kinda sad.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus, I get 'hung up' on chapter one of the very first book; that is, the one that men decided to put into this collection known as the bible and all for their own purposes.
Since when does foundation mean beginning? You can't bullshit your way out of this, the earth has no 'foundation.' Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate that the notion of the earth having 'foundations' was rampant during the period in which the 'scriptures' were written.
Joseph565112 1 year ago
so you must have a problem then with every single history book ever written by man because man wrote them all for his own purposes.the bible simply claims to be Inspired.but back to foundations.everything that is built has a beginning, and everything that is created or built has a plan or foudational basis for construction.some, like actual buildings BEGIN with the foundation or the base for the building to stand on.foundation is a descriptive word for beginnings.please dont play dumb.seriously.
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus, the 'bible' is the same as a history text...? Hardly.
The 'bible' claims to be the inspired word of a 'god' which is a monumental claim in and of itself.
Some things do have a foundational beginning, planets do not. I am not playing dumb, you are. Or are you saying that a 'god' should know less about planet formation than 401 years of planetary science accumlulated by mankind? Planets are not 'created' or 'built' like a building, don't be ridiculous.
Joseph565112 1 year ago
actually historians use the bible for reference all the time so yea it is kind of a history book. so to archeologists and other scientists whether they believe in God or not. if you don't know that then there is no point for further discussion.i agree that the Bible makes a monumental claim, the question is, is it true or not? making the claim doesn't make it false. the term foundation used is a "discriptive" word describing the beginning or origins, was english or grammar part of your studies?
bigus 1 year ago
@bigus, indeed english was a part of my studies, although physics was my major. Sure, people use it in academia to critique it or to get a feel for what the people in the region were going through...far from a history text.
The text says that the foundations of the earth were laid - this coupled with a verse or two mentioning the earth having four corners, which it obviously does not, is cause for some alarm.
The 'bible' claims that the planet was 'created' and it wasn't.
Joseph565112 1 year ago
@bigus yes, the bible is a kind of history book, not a good one, and it is not a science book.
''Plants are not alive'' IF you don't water you house plants, they die.
gregrutz 1 year ago
please educate me on what you know of how planets are formed. you are getting hung up on semantics because you don't understand literary terminology or the use of discriptive words. the text is not claiming that earth or planets have a literal foundation like used in construction. i simply cannot believe you are THAT ignorant. im sure you are an intelligent person just trying to act like cannot understand english for whatever reason. im sorry i bought into it actually im an idiot for responding.
bigus 1 year ago
Yes....Wisdom and beauty does make pride.....The fireBreathing dragon is werry clear on that point O.o
Aikwood666 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
This has been flagged as spam show
What Flood, there is no evidence for a flood.
Tree rings go back unbroken 10000 years.
Ice Cores go back 135,000 years
He has been shown he is wrong and he keeps on lying.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Gay
/geɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [gey] adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb
adjective
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
5. homosexual.
6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
Mupp66 1 year ago
The Phonecians, The Chinese and the Babylonians must have been really surprised when god started creating the earth.
slicingwater 2 years ago 8
Don't forget about the Indians in the Indus Valley too!!
arp76 2 years ago 4
@slicingwater --Why?
tylerh5k 2 years ago
@slicingwater they weren't around back then... you people surprise me with your ignorance....
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@slicingwater No, abiogenesis would require an infinite amount of time but by then your protein would break down and fall apart ..even if they did form what would protect them in a harsh primordial earth? ?..plus where is your molecular machines?..to assemble information??..proteins RNA? and DNA are completely useless without out the enzymes and cytoskeleton...major paradox..you have assumptions ..just like the scientists you look up to..that have really no clue how life started or evolved!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@slicingwater
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
This has been flagged as spam show
@slicingwater "The Phonecians, The Chinese and the Babylonians must have been really surprised when god started creating the earth." You mean what exactly?
mrwebber35 1 week ago
to improve the IQ of the human species, i suggest sterilizing all creationists
walter0bz 2 years ago
I've noticed that what he can't "prove" scientifically (even in a messed up or ad hoc sense), he "proves" with the Bible. Has he ever proven that the Bible is literal and not metaphorical? Or that it's right at all? Does he have any scientific, emperical evidence that can be studied, tested, and proven in a laboratory?
I'm not saying Christianity is wrong: I'm saying that he can't use something unscientific to make scientific points.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
Yes he can, you can use what the bible says and compare it to our daily lives. You can also compare the bible to what we observe here on earth, whether science or not. So far everything matches up perfectly, you are just not looking for it.
Michaeltanase 2 years ago
Even if things in the Bible end up being scientific, the Bible was not created using the scientific method. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong; If you believe it is the Word of God then you obviously believe it to be the ultimate truth and I won't try to change your mind. But that doesn't make it scientific. If everything in the Bible was tested for scientific accuracy using the scientific method, THEN it would be scientific and accepted as evidence by scientists. Start with Numbers 5:11-31
Dhesyca 2 years ago
Jesus himself studied the Bible and said it had been correct and not perverted by man, it was as it should be. It also contains prophecies that are coming true more and more every day.
So technically, yes he can use it as truth because all it contains is truth.
PFC33 2 years ago
And only your faith in Jesus assures you that he is really who the Bible says he is. I'm not going to tell you if he is or he isn't, because that's none of my business. But the point is, it's not scientifically proven to be accurate and therefore has no place in scientific discussions.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
Everything else in the Bible has been right, why not this? It's also not scientific to teach evolution.
The scientific method studies testable/observable evidence, there is no change today at all that we see, they would have to "assume" some things happened which then it jumps into religion. They need to stop forcing it down people's throats and let the person decide. I don't care if they're taught side-by-side, just give people a choice.
PFC33 2 years ago
Everything else in the Bible has been right? Are you serious? Yes, I suppose you are.
And no, evolution is fact. We HAVE observed species evolving into other species both in nature and in the lab. And if you give me that "it's KINDS not SPECIES" stuff, then you're going to have to be a little patient with my IQ and give a more specific definition of "kind". Beyond that, we CAN prove things without observing them directly.
I wish I had more room to talk in one of these little comment boxes.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
Again, this would be "variation." They are changing to suit their environment but they are still the same animal... (I would also like examples of what your saying) The bible says "they shall produce after their Kind" Dogs produce Dogs, Cows produce Cows, etc. they may have lots of hair, or no hair.. long tail, little tail.. but they are still the same animal.
If evolution is fact how long do you think it took for all of this to happen, I'd love to see your logic on this.
PFC33 2 years ago
Thank you for your prompt reply. Here are some examples of species that we have directly observed coming from other species: Oenothera gigas, Primula kewensis, Galeopsis tetrahit, Madia citrigracilis, Mimulus guttatus, etc. If you want more, I can PM them.
I see that you've made examples of "kinds" but that doesn't really answer my questions. What is the definition? Does it have to do with ability to reproduce, physical appearance, location? What are the parameters? Let's start there.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
When I say "Kinds" I simply mean, dog, cat, cow, plant, etc. No hidden meaning, there are different "species" of a kind such as what you mentioned above, but those are all still plants... They are not turning into a hamster.
You can get yellow flowers, tall flowers, thorny bushes, but they are all...plants. They are also not living, they do not have blood, the breath of life, or a soul.
PFC33 2 years ago
Again, you're giving examples, not defining. So you've established that "kinds" are not species; that's a start. Are they Geni? Families? Orders? You're not giving a definition; just examples.
Ok, you define plants as not living: then I'll only focus on animals. All dogs are the same kind? So, are foxes in the same "kind" as dogs? Why or why not?
Dhesyca 2 years ago
I don't know the mechanics down to the micro-meter, but the Bible makes it very clear, a dog is a dog, and a 'fox' is a fox, you have arctic foxes and fennec's. Both complete opposites, but they're both foxes. It's very simple, stop making it complicated.
Cow
Dog
Octopus
Fish
Human
Etc.
It's classified exactly as it says. There's no magic formula, the bible says it very simply. The whale today is classified as a mammal, in the bible, it is a fish, very simple.
PFC33 2 years ago
I'm not trying to make it complicated; I'm trying to point out that the word "kind" is not a scientific term. Therefore, it has no place in a scientific discussion. You pointed out just now that whales are classified in science as mammals, but in the Bible it's a fish; there's obviously a confusion between the two as to how to classify something. So, if science and the Bible are to discuss something, we've got to agree on terms...Isn't that what Kent Hovind said?
So, define.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
I don't remember everything Kent Hovind says, I don't idolize him. As I said it's very simple. But perhaps I need a bigger list.
I really don't know how to make it simpler. Whatever it's basic name is, is a kind. As aforementioned, a arctic fox and a fennec are very different but they are both foxes and can be seen as foxes. Stop looking at this so complicated and look at it as a 5 year old would see it. Perhaps we don't understand what the other is thinking, but this is a brick wall here.
PFC33 2 years ago
Ok, ok, THANK YOU! Finally, we have a definition instead of just an example. "Whatever it's basic name is, is a kind." THAT is something I can work with.
Taht's all I was asking for. It's not a biological answer, but it actually establishes the Creationist criteria. Also "think as a 5 year old would see it" helps...It doesn't speak well for your case, but it helps me understand where you're coming from.
But honestly, I'm not making it complicated; I'm making it spefic.
Dhesyca 2 years ago
i support evolution, seriously i hate creationists. but evolution is still sadly a theory, not a law.
CazzBlock 2 years ago
it would take me 1000 words to explain evolution in full but just settle for this:
evolution makes more sense due to many fossils, carbon dating, observations, logic, DNA biochemistry etc...
God works for people because its much easier to comprehend: big guy makes all. seriously there is nothing more to it than that, that is fully in context - an omnipotent being made all.
CazzBlock 2 years ago
Fossils can't prove anything, they really can't, I can line up a knife, to a spoon, to a fork and say that's how they evolved, am I right? Well I need a missing link, but then I find a spork, now I can prove it.
Also Carbon Dating has been flawed since the beginning and at max can only determine around 30,000 years since the Geiger counter would become too indistinct in clicks to work after that.
God gives a lot more evidence for many things today than evolution ever does if you ask me.
PFC33 2 years ago
look dude, i honestly dont want to be too insulting here but if god explains things easier to you than that is pretty much a testament to your lack of intelligence. Creation is much simpler than evolution and that is the only reason it has the numbers of support it has today.
and dont argue my bias, i learnt creation first.
CazzBlock 2 years ago
Your not, but I love information and it's why I put up my beliefs on videos such as this to draw people like you in a conversation. :)
Creation explains more than evolution does, it may be more complex but even if evolution was proven as a possibility (which is the most it can be proven to since we weren't there in the beginning) there are much more problems needed to explain it. What made you go to evolution and leave creation?
Creation is simpler to explain problems because I think it's right.
PFC33 2 years ago
The 'we weren't there in the beginning" is a poor argument.
It suggests that the unless you directly observe something, you are unable to draw conclusions about what happened.
Applying this logic to the everyday clearly does not hold up.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Your mistaken, I'm referring to history, we cannot piece together exactly what happened in history unless someone was there to witness it. There happens to be a book that gives us an account of what happened in the beginning, I believe it's called the Bible
Now sure, you can put the rough chunks of the puzzle together and say "this looks like it fits" however there are some missing parts of the edge which are inconclusive. We can assume this happened, but we don't know, it is only a possibility
PFC33 2 years ago
I disagree. Humans cannot know anything to an absolute, and must therefore rely on probabilities. All history is like this, including witnessed events, as eyewitnesses are well known to disagree on even basic facts.
Also history is written by the winners, and so any claim from a historical source must be taken with a pinch of salt. The Bible is a historical text and should not therefore be exempt from the same scrutiny, especially when it makes claims that aren't witnessed in reality.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
The very first sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. You can rely on probabilities all you want but you will never know 100% - exactly what I'm saying. Eyewitness are actually seeing something however they view it a different way, the bottom line being that they were there. No one was there when humans came to be so we cannot draw any 100% conclusions, only plausibilities.
Witnessed in reality? The Bible was written by over 100 people who witnessed a majority of that which is in it...
PFC33 2 years ago
Then we are in agreement over probabilities. The differrence between us is that i consider evolution to be the most probable solution. There is direct evidence for evolution, whereas, as far as i am aware, there is none for creation that has not been explained to be inncorrect.
Since the only evidence for God comes from eyewitness reports, until he reveals himself to me directly, and identifies Himself as God (no cookies shaped like jesus), i shall continue to believe he doesn't exist.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
As for the "not witnessed in reality" i should have been clearer. Since there is no evidence for anyone ever having risen from the dead outside the bible, the bible cannot be as enough evidence to consider raising the dead a natural phenomenon. Instead until someone is raised from the dead, cured of leprosy etc by someone else praying for them, and it is conformed as the only possible reason for it to have happened, such events must be considered as ficticious.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Because there has only been 1 Christ. He was God in the flesh, the only perfect man, there are none of those today so of course there's not going to be an accounts of it.
How do you know things today haven't been cured by prayer, have you interviewed everyone? Those with cancer have been cured numerous times, maybe people prayed for them as well. However prayer isn't the issue here, only Jesus was able to do such things, no one else has in the Bible; assuming that it can happen again is faulty.
PFC33 2 years ago
You are mistaken. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, so that it is your responsibility to prove that people have been cured by prayer. It is not for me to waste my time talking to everyone on the planet to prove that it has never happened. For such claims, the default position should be scepticism.
As for Jesus being the only one able to perform miracles, how is it any different from the magic Harry Potter does? Maybe we should believe there are wizards everywhere too.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Plausible and probable are only different by degrees. Plausible could have happened, but isn't that likely. Probable means there is a high chance that it happened. Since we have agreed that our knowledge of anything is limited, probabilities are our only option.
As for I have to go to Him, it also means I have to contact every possible deity imaginable, as they all have followers somewhere, and all maybe true. This is analogous to the interviewing everyone; the burden of proof lies with you.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Finally, why do you believe something for which there is no evidence, and then criticise scientific theories, for which there is much greater evidence to think as being the reason why we are here. If you agree with me that there is no evidence outside of the bible, other than the experiences of a few people who report that they 'met' God, then what is the basis of your faith? There are any no. of gods and story book characters who you could believe in, so why is the Christian God different?
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Again, as mentioned in my post below, if God is omnipotent what evidence does He need to prove He exists? He's had many witnesses when He was Jesus and they put it in a book, can you honestly believe what they put in your books? How do you know we didn't all just fall out of a black hole 5 million years ago and no one remembers? There was also only 1 perfect man as aforementioned, there's no testing that.
Why not believe Harry Potter? You believe evolution based off of a typed up book anyway.
PFC33 2 years ago
The evolution that is in books has been confirmed by experiment, fossil records and also in the developments seen in everday life. Wheat rust, MRSA, swine flu etc. And before you say "that's micro-evolution, that's allowed", I will point out that the difference exists only in the minds of creationists. Darwin's theory doesnot make a distinction, and the arguement is analogous to "you are allowed to make a few small steps at a time, but can never cover a distance of a thousand miles".
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Because it is micro-evolution, it's small minor changes within a species, it has limitations, we have never seen anything change into something entirely different. We have fennecs and arctic foxes, both adapted to the completely opposite environment, but they're both foxes
So just because Darwin doesn't mention it in his book means it's not true? Convincing.
Your "miles long distance" speech is flawed. Your assuming that we're at at the thousand mile mark, but we never even took the first step
PFC33 2 years ago
No, Darwin didn't put it in his book, but not only that, no biologist alive (except for the creationists) make the distiction. Evolution take hundreds of thousands of years to form new species, and that is why we haven't observed it in the last 150 years since the theory was published.
If you agree that evolution can make changes within an individual species, then you cannot refute that evolution will lead to speciation.I also don't understand your objection to my analogy. Rephrase please!
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
It's not only absent from Origin of Species, no biologist alive (apart from creationists) make the distinction. If you agree that evolution can cause small changes in a species, you cannot refute that it will lead to speciation. Evolution takes thousands of years to form new species, that is why no new ones have been observed in the last 150 since the theory was published.
Also I don't understand your objection to my analogy. Could you please rephrase it?
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Because biologists are taught with the preconceived idea that macro-evolution has happened and is why the things they study are changing. The Bible teaches micro-evolution as variations within a species, as the 2 kinds of animals left the ark they reproduced and made all the variations of kinds today
"No new ones have been observed" exactly, that's why it does not belong in science because it is the opposite of the scientific method.
Science is assuming we are in the era of all species evolved*
PFC33 2 years ago
By "preconceived idea" you mean they are taught the best current understanding of the theory! Evolution belongs in science because whilst no new species have emerged (to my knowledge) in the last 150 years, the fossil records clearly indicate that speciation does happen, and it has therefore been observed to have happened in the past, which is scientific method.
If you deny the fossil record you ignore the data to suit your own beliefs. That is a preconceived idea.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
The theory itself is flawed, wrong, inaccurate, whatever word you feel comfortable with, but it didn't happen. The fossil record is actually one of the biggest downfalls of evolution. If evolution took place there would need to be septillions upon septillions of fossils showing even more gradual change than those of today. There are enough fossils to support the flood of the Bible, not billions of years. There have been fossils found that go against evolution, but lets not pay attention to that
PFC33 2 years ago
Fossilisation is a rare process. It can only happen if the conditions are perfectly correct. Therefore to expect such ridiculous numbers of fossils (a septillion is 10^24, 10x more atoms than there are in a mole) is a false expectation. Finding fossils is difficult, but of the ones we do have, it is clear that they show speciation. To expect more is to insight a form of Zeno's paradox.
Also, before the Cambrian explosion (580 million years ago), most creatures would not have been fossilised
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
As for the fossils that "go against evolution" provide examples. Sweeping statements without references won't cut it. You also haven't yet given an explanation as to why the theory is wrong.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Not really, if something is in a pressurized area (under a lot of dirt) and surrounded by water to exchange minerals with (I'll use the flood), it can happen pretty quickly, within a year max which fits in perfectly with the Bible account. Fossilization takes place when decay releases ions into the acidity of the environment necessary for the process. If something were taking so long (allegedly at least hundreds of years) it would have decayed/rotted away and would be nothing to fossilize.
PFC33 2 years ago
If you actually read my comment again, I never said the process isn't quick, I know of sinkholes open to the public where they fossilise teddy bears in a few years. What doesn't fit with the bible account is the age of the fossils, which date to several millions of years. Your only objection could be to radio-carbon dating, which apart from not being the only method to measure the age of rocks (eg Rubidium-Strontium), disregarding it would require you to rethink how radioactive sources decay.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
I understand and I even noticed when I first typed out my post and had to remake it. However I knew you were going to bring up the millions of years as you did in this post and since I had room, I decided to get a head start on it. And your right, my objection to the ages is the dating methods because that's the only thing objectionable. I'm aware of a majority the dating systems and how they work and they're either wrong altogether or wrong because of preconceived ideas or insufficient data
PFC33 2 years ago
But why are they wrong? You haven't given a reason for it. Without specifiics I can't comment about why I think the 'preconcieved' ideas are correct. How much data would you require to have some of these methods be classified as legitamate?
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Are you aware that carbon dating has been used on living or freshly killed animals and it has been anywhere from 8,000 to about 23,000 (I think) years old? I could explain why if you like.
Are you also aware that radiometric dates on lava flows in Hawaii 3-6 months apart have been dated millions of years apart?
None are legitimate because they are all wrong. If it can't give correct dates on recent events, how can it interpret the age of the past? It can't.
PFC33 2 years ago
I'm intrigued, please continue. Explain why carbon dating on newly dead animals leads to such a large range of values. I know space on YT is limited, but this is new to me. Please explain.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
Carbon dating works on the preconceived idea that C14 has stabilized (just as much C14 being made as decaying). They know that it takes about 30,000 years for this to happen so they didn't think anything of it. Well when such drastic/wrong numbers came up, they tested it and concluded that the Earth is only 1/3 the way through the cycle, this would mean Earth is less than 10k years old. Now since the amount in the air is different than their measuring device, they're going to get the wrong data.
PFC33 2 years ago
Is it not true that Carbon dating is accurate only up to 12000 years ago as the concentrations of C14 fall too low to make an accurate analysis? In which case the 30 000 years is not an unreasonable time scale. For the age of the Earth, Uranium is used with the assumption that Helium that is released from the alpha decay is trapped in the rock. The amount ratio of them is then used to work out the initial number of Uranium atoms, and hence its half-life can be calculated. It's in the billions.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
I'm not sure what your trying to say about the Carbon dating date accuracy, you'll have to clarify a bit more, although I'm pretty sure I have a general idea of what your saying. As for uranium dating, here's a few problems. For this method to work, they measure uranium and lead ratio (I'm not sure what you mean by helium, it decays into lead from what I've read) and determine the age by that, however the lead is a major downfall in this, first they don't account for the fact that some...(tbc)
PFC33 2 years ago
...of the lead could have leached out or already have been mixed in there. Scientists tested a 300 year old rock and came back with 50m to 14.5b years old calculations. Also, lead is only an assumed end product for the decaying process. When a sample is tested, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is daughter-product lead. The specimen is not carefully checked for possible Common Lead Content, because it takes too much time. Yet it is that very U/Pb ratio which is used to date it
PFC33 2 years ago
Rutherford proposed before the constituents of alpha particles was known that they could become trapped in the form of helium (alphas are helium nuclei). Since Helium isn't naturally present in rocks, measuring the U to He ratio tells us how many U atoms have decayed, hence how many there were. The half-life can then be calculated which comes out in the billions (U238 is 4.51x10^9). As for the lead method, it is assumed for ease of calculation that there was no lead present at the start...
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
...because as you said, detecting the lead is difficult, yet it has little effect on the proportion of the different elements, and hence the age of the sample and can therefore be safely ignored.
As for the Carbon, I meant that if the age of the Earth is established as billions, then the 30 000 years for the system of production versus decay to reach equilibrium is not at all long, and could easily be achieved. Also Carbon dating is not expected to be accurate beyond 12 000 years.
dreamcattcher1 2 years ago
@dreamcattcher1 Carbou 14 dating works up to 50,000 years.
They can count each atom now.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@PFC33 They date crystals, the Lead atoms is too big and does not fit in the structure. So all of it must be daughter products.
They can cross check the dates.
Tree rings go back 10,000 years, so does the history of the Chinese.
Proving Kent Wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@PFC33 no other people can do this not only Jesus and we can actually do better works then him.
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
Not sure what you're replying to. You'll have to clarify.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 im saying Jesus isnt the only one capable... we are able to do better than him.
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 Capable of doing what? I still don't know what you're talking about. That's what I needed clarification to.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 everything he did, his miracles and such.
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
Um.. No.. We most certainly cannot. That's why they're called "miracles" because they can't be done naturally. We can't turn water into wine without an intermediate steps. We can't heal people instantly through touch. We can't bring people back to life once they've naturally passed on and we most certainly can't resurrect ourselves. Those are just a few to mention.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 yes we can... and we can even do better. we could move mountains and bring back the dead, we could turn wine to water and back if we only but asked him. dude Jesus told us, gave us the Bread to doing greater works... he said we could do these things.. if ONLY we had faith the size of a " " seed. i forget which type .. but very small lol.
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@PFC33 ressurection now.. thats one i would doubt but hey ... who knows
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us, but that's "if" he approves of what we're doing. If we're trying to resurrect ourselves that would nullify his resurrection on the cross and thus would be worth nothing, so he wouldn't help us do that.
Just because he "can" help us do everything he did doesn't mean he will. You made it sound, from the beginning, like we could do anything Jesus did on our own, and we can't.
P.S. It's a mustard seed.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 i dont think it would nullify his works... but even bring more glory to His name and the Father. If someone died saying God is going to bring me up again pshhhh and it happened... smh ... personally id think so much more people would see, it is possible, God is real and Jesus was His son. But yeah i didnt mean by ourselves.. lol not at all. and Thank you I;ll remember it a Mustered seed. and Def only and only if he gives the green light fr us to do such works. God Bless
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 If someone else was resurrected then that diminishes Jesus' resurrection. Jesus showed that he beat death, and as such we can put our faith in him and death will pass over us (spiritual death anyway). What's it say if someone else beats death? Who needs Jesus, we'll just follow that other guy that beat death for us.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33I see what your saying but The only way is Through Jesus...there are going to be many resurrected before around judgement .. but only by Jesus will this be possible giving more Glory to His name becaue without Him it would just be dust lol
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 I know, but why is it only through Jesus? Because he died for our sins. But if someone else dies for them, who needs Jesus?
Now, I can understand that if it's on the basis of God (partially, I'll have to study it a bit more), but there's no spiritual message to it as there was with Christ's, and therefore there would be no need for it. I'm primarily speaking on the basis of a non-Christian resurrecting, then it would nullify everything Christ did.
PFC33 1 year ago
@PFC33 well im speaking inside the our religion, no one can die for sin but Jesus. the only reason for resurrecting another would be proof that it did happen and only through Jesus. I think it would serve as a great example " hey it happened before, im real, i died for your sins... and i let this guy/girl be an example for you "still i understand what your saying. If only there were people with such that i knew. very hard ... in the world id think very few
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 In conclusion, I don't see any reason for another resurrection, be it a Christian or non-Christian.
PFC33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CheyennedeLuna77 No without Jesus a person is doomed to spend an eternity in the lake of fire. Jesus is the only way to heaven.
1954phyllis 1 year ago
@PFC33 yeah i really did't speel mustard right :/
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
if anything I said I was against relying on probabilities, I said things were plausible; probable is completely different. There is more than enough evidence, especially for the flood, however keep in mind that "evidence" is the primary source for evolution. There's not much evidence for creation because, honestly, how can anything be proven that God did something if he's omnipotent? He can make gravity into gravy for all He cares
He will never reveal Himself to you, you have to go to Him first
PFC33 2 years ago
Mr Hovind, I agree with almost everything you've taught and have enjoyed watching your videos, but I must point out what I believe is a flaw in your thinking. The earth and mankind was created in six days, but the angels and Lucifer were created a long time before we were.
God bless you and your family.
Chassysweet 2 years ago
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
1611 Dictionary? I'm pretty sure there wasn't even an English dictionary until Johnson's sometime in the 1700s
NegativeNick 2 years ago
The first purely English alphabetical dictionary was "A Table Alphabeticall", written by English schoolteacher Robert Cawdrey in 1604. The only surviving copy is found at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.
JamesEarlCash1256 2 years ago
"plants are not alive"
I love watching this guy, it's kinda like watching a comedy that makes fun of religious view. But what makes it even funnier is the guy is serious.
jpayne68177 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
geodashamayim 2 years ago
@jpayne68177-And then i love reading comments from ppl like you who miss quote what he says to get ur point across. We call a person like that a deceiver n a lire. he said plants aren't alive in the Biblical term. Next time please don't embarrass urslf cuz there r those of us who actual listen to learn rather than listen to find faults (like u). Akuna Metata!!!!
HelloWorld1947 1 year ago
@HelloWorld1947
love is a strong word sir. I didn't miss quote...he is claiming that plants are not alive. Everything he speaks and views is in line with the Bible. You know this guy is in prison for fraud right? The reality is that the world-view that this man possess is incredibly delusional. He talks about biology without having any understanding of biological science. Kent Hovind is a joke.....
jpayne68177 1 year ago
@jpayne68177 then we better lock up a lot more people...
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@jpayne68177 did you watch the seminar part 7? See what he's saying indepth....
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN which video does he talk about plant life not living
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 seminar part 7 or the class series, at least watch the videos and give him a chance to defend himself... i don't personally agree but at least let him explain.
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
If god is real why didnt my earth in one day? I mean he is all powerful he could made earth in one second, right? If he is real than the bible is wrong or God is very stupid.
Reaper84848 2 years ago
how do you figure god as stupid just for taking 6 days?
NegativeNick 2 years ago
Because if god was all mighty he would just made it in one second. Sorry if I offended you, but why would take six days to make Earth that just doesn't make since to me. If you believe in god then good for you.
Reaper84848 2 years ago
In order to have a world there has to be rules of science to hold it together. You are stumbling on the idea of, can God make something so heavy He can't lift it? That is satanic thought. You will worship in the near future. It will be for the real God or lucifer. If you can't see what is taking place right now you are blind. God created a beautiful balanced world for you to live in while man does everything to destroy it. Do you expect a baby in one second?
jondulars 2 years ago
Someone said that God created time so everything doesn't happen all at once. He put the rules of science so everything has an order. You expect too much from God without giving Him anything in return. God doesn't need you, you need Him. But, you have bought the lie of no God. You buy evolution that makes no sense but it allows you to do what feels good with no guilt. When you find out you are wrong it will be too late FOREVER!
jondulars 2 years ago
Wouldn't it be grand if his God came back to earth, created a few small miracles for verification, then say Kent has it right. Don't wait for it. Hovind's blasphemy against truth for the sake of his religion should be illegal.
mensameme1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Kent Hovind's a fraud, a liar!" Oh, liar, shmiar; I've searched up nearly every article and proof he has presented and I have found absolutely NO flaw in them. He may seem "crazy" if he did have "tax frauds", or whatever, but at least he may know some reasonable stuff we don't.
PS: The Evolution theory is reasonably stupid; the Creation message is reasonable reasonable (and makes a whole lot more sense and meaning.)
Eye2Eye35 2 years ago
No you didn't actually, who do you expect to buy this garbage?
You may be stupid enough to by Hovind's lie, but no one else with sense is.
I guess you uneducated fundamentalists thrive off of lying and quote mining to get a point across. I just don't understand how people can be so stupid, and to wear such stupidity as a badge of honor.
But anyways you read up on nothing to find out anything, you're just lying so that someone would come to you and start something.
Get an education.
jrmygray 2 years ago
DONT DROP THE SOAP KENT!
importedmusic 2 years ago
2:27........the poisoning of our youth.
meatballs1945 2 years ago
CREATION => Meaning of Life, Standards, Marriage, Laws, God's Word
EVOLUTION => Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual Behavior, Lawlessness, Man's Opinion
Eye2Eye35 2 years ago
Short and sweet! :-)
Prayer in schools worst things were talking while teacher teaches......
Fast forward Pray out of school....Drugs, Guns, Death.
TheDumaka 2 years ago
Holy fucking unbelievable shit! You are really this dumb? Or is this an act?
meatballs1945 2 years ago
You're speech betrays you're ignorance...
rustysruger 2 years ago 3
Whats really ignorant he is so upset he took time out of his pathetic feeble life to comment on my vids which had nothing to do with the subject at hand......
Poor Fools
TheDumaka 2 years ago
What really gets me is these so called educated fools haven't had the chance to actually pick up some other ways to convey their message.
TheDumaka 2 years ago
Proverbs 14
The fool has said in his heart "there is no God."
thewordkeeper 2 years ago
Amen....
TheDumaka 2 years ago
2 Peter 3:5-7 (The Message)
"They conveniently forget that long ago all the galaxies and this very planet were brought into existence out of watery chaos by God's word. Then God's word brought the chaos back in a flood that destroyed the world. The current galaxies and earth are fuel for the final fire. God is poised, ready to speak his word again, ready to give the signal for the judgment and destruction of the desecrating skeptics."
thewordkeeper 2 years ago
why not just make everyting in one day. and why take a rest? Was He tired?
chachee99 2 years ago
Dear friend don't waste your time on these here. They don't want a God and want to be ignorant. Reminds me of the Forward in Darwin's Origin of Species 100th Anniversary:
Evolution is unproved and unprovable we believe it only because the only alternative is special Creation, and that is UNTHINKABLE(Sir Arthur Keith 1959)
Don't cast your pearls to the dogs!
TheDumaka 2 years ago
It's funny, I have raised my son to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, and he has the same exact conviction you have in Jesus and God. Hmmm, makes ya wonder...
meatballs1945 2 years ago
Apologies, I don't dignify imbeciles with a response!
TheDumaka 2 years ago
You just gave me a response you dumb fuck. Secondly, TRY FINDING SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN THAT ACTUALLY LISTENS TO THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT THAT THIS CRIMINAL IS SPEWING! You must be ridiculously uneducated and STUPID. This is NOT debatable. What's it like being so dumb? Seriously, help me understand what it's like to be irrational, illogical, and brainless? Take a few minutes for your response. Later dipshit.
meatballs1945 2 years ago
WOW...look at your limited vocabulary it is far beneath me to so much as give you another sec in my day.....You should learn the English language are at least Google some words and ACT INTELLIGENT.
I don't debate with self-confident fools who bases of argument are from finite knowledge. You don't believe DIE and SEE!!!
Don't waste your time I am done with this tautology called a comment your sending, however because your lonely and incoherent you will respond....HEY THAT'S JUST LIFE
TheDumaka 2 years ago
I notice you haven't really defended anything I said, interesting....Seriously though, what's it like being incredibly stupid? What's it like knowing that EVERYONE with a brain and COMMON SENSE laughs at your beliefs? What's it like? I suspect you believe the earth is 6,000 years old right? ENOUGH SAID. I mean seriously, have you ever told anyone that in person, or are you too embarrassed to admit you believe in such ridiculous things? Funny how we both know your an idiot, isn't it? haha
meatballs1945 2 years ago
Well said meatballs1945.
This sorry excuse of man doesn't have anything to debate or is even worth your time of a response. He gave me ignorant misunderstandings of science. When they were debunked he began to get personal, or at least tried to.
Now this loser "Dumaka" goes around talking like everyone is beneath him and he even began to bother me again.
Lol.
This loser "Dumaka" is nothing but moron wrapped up ignorance, wishes, delusions, and conspiracy theories. Garbage at its finest.
jrmygray 2 years ago
No Son the real loser is You, The so called Common Sense you and the imbecile meatballs1945 proclaim- was easily left behind for a girl you desperately desired. So its all an act until a young lady steps in then you are willing to refute your belief for her.....desperate, lonely and ridiculous!
obviously your still up set we exchanged contact info and still communicate....Your still crying like children do...quite sad actually
TheDumaka 2 years ago
Lol,
Still trying to get personal, eh? Especially with no knowledge of the whole situation. Besides she doesn't even understand what I said to her, because she isn't as smart as you think.
So basically a rock told a dumb ass about how I felt, do you now see why that is so funny?
But continue to judge and assume because to this day you still don't have any facts as to why you believe in ignorance, loser.
And talking about my life with no knowledge on it. Now THAT'S sad.
Lol, loser.
jrmygray 2 years ago
ad hominem attacks get you know where kid...but name calling is what children such as yourself do when backed in to a corner.
Have a peaceful life!
TheDumaka 2 years ago
Backed into a corner?
Lol.
It was you who did nothing but talk garbage and throw lame insults at me. It was you who thought it was a good idea to try to get personal in attempts to piss me off.
Don't try to turn this on me, and it's sad that you're actually trying.
Also, I'm still waiting on those facts that supports your ignorant belief. I'm still waiting on those facts that helps support bronze-aged biblical nonsense.
Lol, you have nothing.
Get an education, loser.
jrmygray 2 years ago
Rustysruger said it all...
TheDumaka 2 years ago
Right....
and this is coming from someone who cannot support biblical nonsense, yet believes in it faithfully. This is why we call fundamentalists like you dumb asses.
Oh, and I'm still waiting on those facts.
jrmygray 2 years ago
How can you not support the Bible, but still believe in it? That doesn't make any sense! If this is what you are, you're still spiritually blind.
Ironhide12977 2 years ago
It doesn't make any sense because you don't understand it.
How can he believe in biblical nonsense, when he cannot SUPPORT THAT NONSENSE WITH ANY KIND OF DATA, FACTS, OR EVIDENCE? Do you understand now?
You don't know the very meaning of spiritually blind. If you didn't know, there is more than just your god and your story in existence today.
There are over 10,000 religions being practiced today, not to mention about 38,000 christian denominations.
So stupid, who's actually spiritually blind
jrmygray 2 years ago 2
Damn, creationism-"science?" is so dumb that my braincells want to commit suicide. How can someone call this dogmatic preaching a science?
Part 1 of the serie promised proof that the world was made in 6 days? Now what is the proof, the bible? Come on, this is so incredibly stupid.
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice Nice Video. I really loved your video. Youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed, check out this site called tubeviews [dot net] It has really done wonders for me, I have built 3 Channels up with videos at top in position and this is my forth channel i'm going to working on.
Very Lovely!
Felishadfh 2 years ago