(Kent Hovind) Creation Seminar 2 The Garden of Eden Part 10

[mrwebber35]

Kent Hovind, please prove you are more scientific than the scientific community. I know you know that you are out right disregarding the possibility that the Bible's account of Genesis is entirely from god. Time described within could easily be dumbed down for the transcriber. God's not going to describe how he views creation to a man who is curious by nature. How would he understand what he was being told. Revelations is what Genesis could have been written like but totally incomprehensible.

[RJL738]

We don't know waht culture have existed that there is little evidence for, we keep finding ancient ruins and even full blown civilizations futher back even ones that made discoveries that amazing even modern science. The Library of Alexandria, this is really unlikely but what if there were hundreds of vauge anologes of this library throughout human hsytory and we only know of a few at best, not to mention a population of these anologes throughout trillions of other planets.

[RJL738]

It is true that a scientific theory gets it's marit from it's ability to be wrong or to have a falsifyable possibility for any individual part of it or the thing as a whole. This mentality really should be applied in every major area of life. How an idea gains what is called streat credit is it's ability to stand up to scrutiny by countless arguments and it can predict futher than it's self.

[RJL738]

It is more complicated than that many evolutionists are just convinced by their evidence and havn't been exposed to many Creation argumants. There is not a universal conspiracy to that obviously hide evidence there may be some dishonesty but they are not going around supressing anything that doesn't agree with them, how could they get away with that?

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

the bible is plagiarism of other religions which therefore makes any argument that god is real forfeit.

[1954phyllis]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence GOD is definitely real. Do you have any concrete proof that God doesnt exist?

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

@1954phyllis people used to worship the sun, bible was used to control primitive mankind, there are thousands of other gods, god has petty human emotions and if he was real he would present himself so everyone would stop bickering, also god likes killing and many other horrific things. so even if he was real I wouldn't worship him.

[1954phyllis]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence You atheists can't stand the thought that there is a God can you? The Bible is the inspired Word of God and if you can't accept that fact than too bad for you. God did present Himself by all of creation." The fool hath said in His heart there is no God.....Psalm 14:1 To blame God for killing and other horrible things is denying the fact that one man Adam brought this mess upon us all.Not God.

[spidertraceur15]

About 1,000 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was at the center of the universe. About 600 years ago, scientists “knew” that the Earth was flat. About 500 years ago, scientists “knew” that bigger rocks fell faster than smaller rocks. About 5 years ago, scientists “knew” Pluto was a planet. Today, scientists “know” we came from apes. Ha, scientists don’t know shit.

[foxsneeker]

@spidertraceur15 so true

[1954phyllis]

@spidertraceur15 Amen!!!!

[gregrutz]

They found a human footprint that was too large to be human, and that proves ???

[gregrutz]

NOVA is part of the evolutionist religion. I saw them in church last Sunday. LOL

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

3:20 HOW TRUE!!!

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

7:59 is where he talks about proper health.

[gregrutz]

@Eye2EyeIIIV Kent has been shown he is wrong and keeps lying anyway.

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

Science keeps confirming the Bible right. ☺

[cloudyboy87]

@Eye2EyeIIIV

It sure does! God bless science! literally.

[gregrutz]

@Eye2EyeIIIV Except the part about a global flood, that is wrong.

And the bible is wrong about the age of the earth,

And the bible is wrong about the earth being the center of the solar system.

And.....

And......

etc.

[DelMinor]

I don't know where I stand anymore. People bring up brainwashing alot. Goes both ways. I guess maybe we were brainwashed in school with evolution and it started when we were young so we wouldn't know any better. I was pro evolution, foaming at the mouth evolutionist actually. Now I am not so sure. Evolution seems to be all about supposition, and what scientists THINK may have happened.

[PsychoKnights]

Brainwashing is what people call teaching when they don't like what is being taught. In one sense, we brainwash kids (teach them what to think) in regards to hygene, manners, and a multitude of other aspects of life. The important thing is to teach people that they need to think for themselves and make their own decisions...even if we push them in a certain direction.

[PsychoKnights]

It sounds like you are thinking outside the box. Good. I can not convince you that God, Jesus, and the Bible art true; only the Holy Spirit can do that, but God wants you to know the truth; he loves you and he will show you the truth if you keep your mind and your heart open.

[minime00]

I would agree, all science is based on hypothesis

[stalwartatheist]

"all science is based on hypothesis"

You say that as if it's a bad thing. All religions, it's worth noting, are based on conjecture, myth, legend and superstition.

[VeggieTrunks]

It's only a bad thing when people like you come around and act as if anything that comes out of an atheist's scientist's mouth is fact.

Much of it is hypothesis and theories. I know evolution has become your religion so it's hard to hear that. Obviously there are a lot of undisputed things like the law of gravity and the Earth being round.

And you have no proof all religions are false. Show me these people making up the Bible. They are the BEST authors man has ever seen, if they did!

[stalwartatheist]

"act as if anything that comes out of an atheist's scientist's mouth is fact"

I do no such thing.

"I know evolution has become your religion..."

Sigh. You're one of those "evolution is a religion" types, are you? You're wrong. If evolution were proven wrong, I wouldn't believe it. I don't worship it, I don't love it, I simply respect it.

"And you have no proof all religions are false"

Mate, I have literal mountains of evidence. Do you really want to go down that road with me??

[stalwartatheist]

"Show me these people making up the Bible"

You do realise that all the authors of the bible are dead, right? We can't communicate with the dead. Did you know that?

[KakashiTheFirst]

I doubt that because we simply can't communicate "verbally" with the people from the past, that he bible is apocryphal.

[heroblue15]

@DelMinor i agree wit u im 17 i belived in evoultion a lot i studied it wiy my scince teacher but it always confused me cause there was no real proof for the reasons why and cant explain where we came from.. but then i met GOD! got saved my JESUS CHRIST and believe in creation only in 2 years.. lol

[gregrutz]

@DelMinor No, Science is based on facts. Religion takes faith.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@gregrutz Would science really come up with such a guess that's so flawed? For many years, science have tried to support the evolution theory with the intentions bringing religion to an end. We can play pong all day, and talk about what science tries to unfold, or what religion renders within the bible. The real answer lies within the "beginning" of everything. science will never come to rationalize the origin of existance. They will not, never, and can not.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@KakashiTheFirst You can prove God, or a superior divine being created everything that is by just looking through the cracks. The errors. Take for example: Reverse all the stars/universe in an expanding universe to one point in time. Where does the star come from? Where does the force come from? Was it always there? No. Infinity can't leak into a finite universe. We don't know space's measurement or if it even has one. But the universe, galaxy, stars "began" at one point and became limitless.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst Science does not care about religion. There is no plot.

Science just doesn't use the supernatural, it changes no experiment.

IF science found out God made the first cell, THEN would you ''believe'' in evolution?

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst

Science is not trying to rationalize anything, they are looking for the facts.

They have no intention to end religion, they don't care about religion.

Yes, Kent, they can discredit all your bull shit.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@gregrutz Alright, Greg. You've proved the definition of science. That's great :]. science isn't meant for rationalizing anything, but it is used for that purpose. Its no secrete that mankind has been ansty to try and disprove the existence of a God by digging for the facts that can reserve the possibility. That's why there's a widely accepted fact (whatever the fuck that means) that we were brought here by natural selection.

[gregrutz]

@DelMinor No, scientists have proven evolution with DNA. Hovind is full of crap.

[kagato0110]

@DelMinor life would be so much easier of people read the life manual (Bible), all evidence is so much more concrete than theories.

[bigus]

@DelMinor i agree. there is no evidence yet like kent says they are as religious about their beliefs as creationists are, the difference is that the creationist argument i think is a lot more logical when followed all the way through.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Does anyone want to claim Kents "PHD" is worth anything? Might5 aswell cut the barcode of your cereal box and call yourslef Doctor LOL

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Gee lets try thinking, the doll could have been 1 foot under the ground, then when drill hole got taken that low down.

[zigzagzoo12]

Funny how Atheists are attacking him personally, but I haven't seen one dispute of a single piece of evidence from the numerous evidence he presents.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Millions of scientis disagree with what he says, he even takes other contries myths and pretends they are ark ones when they are NOT.

After all he has a worthless PHD from a diploma mill. He should know better than Billions of years of research by people with real PHDs.

[zigzagzoo12]

If there were scientific facts to prove Big Bang or evolution, we wouldn't be having this discussion, IDIOT!!

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Well thats well thought out, You know your religion is the right one because its your religion. Everyone else also knows their religion is the ruight one well fancy that.

The abncient egyptians, romans, greeks, mesopatamians etc etc etc all know their gods where the real ones, and so do you. One day your religion will fall out of fashion as theirs did.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Well thats well thought out, You know your religion is the right one because its your religion. Everyone else also knows their religion is the ruight one well fancy that.

The ancient egyptians, romans, greeks, mesopatamians etc etc etc all know their gods where the real ones, and so do you. One day your religion will fall out of fashion as theirs did.

[zigzagzoo12]

You interviewed millions of scientists and they all said that they disagree with him or are you just full of BULL?

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Its the view of science offcourse there is some even with PHD who dont agree, the ones like you who where brain washed to believe in a god at all cost.

[thorton644]

The ones like you brainwashed to believe in macro, cosmic, chemical, and organic evolution at all costs.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

LOL millions of intelligent unbiased people came with it, not one bible. So let me guess you where bought up in a christian country and taught to be christian from young?

[thorton644]

Let me guess, you have a necessarily biased belief in pragmatism.

[Soupthemighty]

Cosmic and chemical evolution are observable.

Macro evolution is observable through the fossil record.

Sorry dude, we're not the brainwashed ones.

[Gearogi]

srry dude, you are. this guy has given solid facts how evolution is disproven and you just turn away, not even looking at the "tracks"

[Soupthemighty]

Actually, "this guy" has given no evidence in favor of his position, nor has he disproven any evidence in favor of an old earth. He has merely given religious smut and does not deserve even your modest praise.

I offer you the fossil record, observable evolution, and "cosmic evolution"(as nobody but Kent Hovind puts it) as evidence of and old earth, and what does he give me?

"brainwashed to believe in macro, cosmic, chemical, and organic evolution at all costs"

Not worth my time. Respond.

[Gearogi]

He gave you evidence in favor of his position, He showed pictures of humans and dinosaur tracks together. when the soil was meant to be 3.2 "million" years old. Same thing with human footprints in undisturbed volcanic Ash A billion years ago or something like that.

[Soupthemighty]

Rofl. Oh lordy, I must show my friends your comment!

"humans and dinosaur tracks together"!

hahahaha! And

"a billion years ago or something like that"! Lol, slow down, Harvard!

First off, the Paluxy river findings of "human and dinosaur tracks together" were thouroughly disproven by a team of geologists, paleontologists, and podiatrists. They were HUMAN footprints, fool!

Second, everyone who's passed basic high school geology knows that...

[Gearogi]

I dont pay attention to dates that are wrong. The earth is definately not over a million years old. Its not 6000 either. But i dont give a shit Because bottom line, Christianity is Correct, Evolution is wrong.

[Soupthemighty]

It continues, the showing of no evidence besides that in favor of your brain being a vestigal organ.

Fact: the majority of christians in the united states are in favor of the theory of Evolution and the belief of an old earth.

The theory of evolution is not the belief in an old earth, it is a method of explaining how organisms adapt to their environments. Also, belief in evolution does not negate a belief in christianity. Look at the channel DonExodus2 for a brilliant example.

[minime00]

show me your proof for evolution....

[VeggieTrunks]

Okay....? My problem with Evolution is not a religious one and still wouldn't be if Evolution was proven to be true. But it's not. You act like we're refuting the law of gravity, something that is considered a FACT.

Or the Earth being round, something the Bible said a long time ago, btw. Many facts in the Bible that you tend to overlook just because you hate the idea of having accountability in your life.

However, I'm a democrat, so I respect your decision to deny God.

[stalwartatheist]

"Many facts in the Bible that you tend to overlook just because you hate the idea of having accountability in your life"

My my, you really are pulling out all the old favourites here. My not believing in god, it may disappoint you to know, has precisely fuck all with "not wanting to be accountable". This whole idea is outdated, vacuous, naive and, frankly, pathetic. Believe whatever you want, but don't tell me why I don't share your beliefs. You can keep that bile to yourself. Okay?

[stalwartatheist]

"My problem with Evolution is not a religious one and still wouldn't be if Evolution was proven to be true"

Nothing, with the exception of mathematics, can be proven. There's always the chance that we're wrong, or missing some vital clue. Until this event happens, however, something that continually stands up to scrutiny can be considered as true. This includes evolution. But you need to realise that evolution is not a religion. It is not the opposite of religion. It is simply science.

[Soupthemighty]

1)The bible says that the earth is flat (Matthew 4:8), and that the earth never moves (1 Chronicles 16:30) , AND has strong geocentric undertones all throughout the old testament. Do NOT belive what this "book" says concerning the history of the earth.

2)I an speaking of the Theory of Evolution as if it were a fact simply because it IS a fact. Have you heard of Atomic Theory? Do you choose not to believe in atoms? Gravity is also a theory. I will support my claims if that is what you wish.

[KakashiTheFirst]

The bible explains the earth is a "sphere", not flat. o____O

[Soupthemighty]

Revelations 7:1

"And I saw four angels standing at the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH"

Daniel 4:11

"The tree grew...and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH"

Matthew 4:8

" Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

etcetera.

[KakashiTheFirst]

Isaiah 40:22

21 Do YOU people not know? Do YOU not hear? Has it not been told to YOU from the outset? Have YOU not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,

[Soupthemighty]

Lol a circle is a two-dimensional shape. This only furthers my argument.

Now if the passage had said sphere, you would have a leg to stand on. But you don't.

[Sledge070685]

Yo. The 4 corners of the earth. The North corner, The South Corner, The East Corner and The West Corner. Duh !

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst I can make a 'circle' on a flat piece of paper.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@gregrutz Job 26:10

"He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,

To where the light ends in darkness. "

No less than a sphere that exposes fading light: shade. Which illustrates daylight and darkness on both faces.

26:9

"Enclosing the face of the throne*, Spreading out* over it his cloud."

"The Throne" by a different vowel pointing, "his full moon". With probably explains why Galileo was inspired to discover that the earth is a sphere by studying the moon.

[gregrutz]

@Kakashi.. Galileo showed the earth was not the center everything. He did this by finding the moons of Jupiter. The Church put him under house arrest for proving the bible Wrong.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@gregrutz No no, infact if you've read deeply into Galileo's background. You would know that he, with the intentions of rendering biblical texts, was evoked to modify the truth about the bible. Where on earth did you read that he "proved the bible wrong"? He proved the Catholic's rendition of the bible wrong, yes. Not the bible itself.

Did you know that Newton also read the bible, back to back? Daily, throughout his life? There's a good cause, who's looking for answers.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@gregrutz I bet you know nothing about God or the Bible. Do what Newton or Galileo did, study the bible first before coming up with a solution.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst What part of God is hard to understand, All Everything. All powerful, that is why it took 6 days to make the universe and then he had to rest.

I read the first page of the bible and it was clearly written by men who thought the world was flat and the moon only came out at night.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@gregrutz The shrewlike rodent was dismissed as well as Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Chimpanzee skull, the Neanderthal man. Its sad that the first apes you'd bring up were Ardi and Lucy. Consider radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism. Believing in Arid and Lucy is just as making up a God.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst I don't have to ''believe' in Ardi or Lucy. They are real.

They are called fossils. I know they are invisible to you, but they are real.

And They walked upright. If you hadn't noticed, humans are the only animal to walk upright.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@Soupthemighty soupthemighty, you're just pulling strings out of your own ass. Quit stating logical fallacies: "speaking of the Theory of Evolution as if it were a fact" ?

Evolution does involve biology, its analysis. Many creationists aim to attack evolutionists who believe in the "theory", not the fact. And many Evolutionists call themselves "Evolutionists" when they only talk about nature's accustomed changes in every-day evolution

[Soupthemighty]

@KakashiTheFirst You misunderstand me. As well as several scientific terms and fields. An everyman's use of the word "theory" is synonymous with "guess" or "thought". A Scientific Theory, however, is an idea created by deduction from the evidence and is accepted upon by the majority of people who are educated on the subject. The FACT of evolution and that of an old earth fits in perfectly with evidence from biology, archaeology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, and anatomy.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@Soupthemighty Is accepted by the majority, as apposed to any congregation who accept God? Can he not fit the guessing criteria within science? I can tell you the names of all the evolutionary-line ups from fossil evidence leaking down to dark fragments of human skull, orangutan jaw and teeth, and areas fabricated from plaster all in ONE model. I'm not bluffing, I'll tell you.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst Just wondering, what bull shit did creationist make up for Ardi. And Lucy, who also walked upright, you can tell from the neck.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst Just wondering, what bull shit did creationist make up for Ardi. And Lucy, who also walked upright, you can tell from the neck.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst Just wondering, what bull shit did creationist make up for Ardi. And Lucy, who also walked upright, you can tell from the neck.

[gregrutz]

@KakashiTheFirst  what is you excuse for Ardi?

[Soupthemighty]

@KakashiTheFirst It is true that the Scientific Theory of Evolution pertains only to the adaptations that animals go in order to better suit their environment, however creationists tend to confuse the fact of evolution with the fact of an old earth, stemming from the controversy the resulted from Darwin publishing "On the Origin of Species" and the Catholic church denouncing it.

[KakashiTheFirst]

@Soupthemighty How is it that Evolution, we'll call it modern synthesis, being the product of an every-day basis a theory. . . when its clearly a fact? And yeah, creationists do confuse that. But I often come across a thread, now and then, seeing Evolutionists taking advantage of that flawed knowledge. Why not help them understand what it is, instead of furthering their confusion?

[Soupthemighty]

@KakashiTheFirst Like I said before, a Scientific Theory is different from the everyman's use of the word theory. it's true-look it up. And sometimes I do clarify that the Theory of Evolution is not synonymous with the idea of an old earth. Other times I merely focus on refuting the scant evidence the creationist gives in order to show them they haven't a single basis in fact.

[JohnnyTesla23]

you dont have to be a democrat to respect that haha, Im republican and I respect free will

[minime00]

disproven?

[minime00]

hey soupthemighty... where did water come from?

[Soupthemighty]

Proff of evolution comes from three primary sources:

1)The fossil record

2)Observed instances of Speciation

and 3)Genetic drift

Feel free to attempt to argue against all of them, I assure you, you haven't a leg to stand on. The modern Theory of Evolution fits perfectly with modern science and the predictions of modern biology and medicine. You can also argue in favor of the fallacies of the idea of an old earth, but it will produce the same result.

[Soupthemighty]

To answer your question on the origin of water, refer to the video /watch?v=4qymoktf0wY

I would answer the question myself but to do so would take several comments. Suffice it to say that all matter came from light and energy, and water specifically was the second most common compound in the universe(after H2). It really is a fascinating story and it fully explains where the universe and all matter comes from. For the origin of the energy from which all matter sprung, look to string theory.

[ktorch]

Which GOd?

[FlappyDraws]

lots of accounts that have videos criticising kent hovind are being suspended

including:

rabidape

rationalresponse

richarddawkinsnet

[soolkyut]

Looking up his Taylor track claim, it seems that this Taylor individual is the only of a number of creationists who examined the site and thought they were human tracks. All the other creationists dismissed it as eroded dinosaur tracks

[soolkyut]

I wonder how much of this stuff mr. Hovind invents to argue his point?

[thorton644]

Why don't you find out instead of asking a propagandist suggestive question.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

You mean making common sense explinations? Arkums Razor!

[thorton644]

Nope

[ktorch]

I have, spent over 50 years there, I'm not a beginner!

[ktorch]

Why is it, his disciveries cannot be substaiciated by aby other scients?  97% of mainline scientists disagree with this man, and have a much deeper studt vase than Kent Howard.

[eatspbandj]

97% huh? Do you know 78.3% of statistics are made up? :) Have you polled every sceientist and asked him or her their belief? I don't think so. See, by tossing out this 97% statistic, you're not being very scientific at all. There are plenty of scientists out there who believe in creationism. I am one of them.

Ktorch, there are some down right wrong claims by some "churches" and by scientists. I urge you to search for the truth for yourself.

[drahyden]

Really, the difference stands on what ever a personbelives, or whatever a person knows. Some scientsts, i know some of them myself, belive in creation, but know that evolutio is true...

[sablechicken]

Thank God for Kent Hovind

[gregrutz]

@sablechicken Thank God Kent Hovind is in Jail.

There are no human tracks with dinosaurs, unless men walked around 100 million years ago.

[gregrutz]

@sablechicken Thank God Kent is in Prison.

[1954phyllis]

@sablechicken amen