They may have saw the Oort could but you don't have to see something to know it exists. You can actually disprove something but it is very hard and much easier to prove it exists. No Young Earth Creationism and Evolution not that there is only those two but they most definitly are not just opposites even though a large fraction of both of them are opposite. It is wrong to even try and think this way.
Again the concept of losing implies a constant rate and makes a fundemental assumption, it's this kind of logical equivocation that makes good science tedious at best, it takes away too much energy. I personally believe our Solar System has an extensive Oort Cloud it may be more than 100 times more massive than they say, I firmly believe we have one.
It is true the Moon goes around the Earth but the Earth and the Moon have a baracenter with one another meaning that the Earth wobbles severly due to the Moon going around it. You can't use the receding Moon as an argumant for a young Earth because this assumes the Moon was moving away at the same rate, it could be as the Moon moves farther away to recedes faster, think about it.
1. Evolution exclusively deals with speciation, not abiogenesis or cosmology. Stop saying "the theory of evolution says that the stars..." You sound stupid.
2. The "a" prefix does not only mean "not." From its French-Latin origin it means "away from," abbreviated from "ab." "Amuse" literally means "to divert from serious thought," not "without thought."
2. You want to play the burden of proof game? I wouldn't if I were you. It tends to not be too friendly to sky wizards.
NOT ONE of this idiot's claims stand up to even the least bit of scrutiny. If you believe him you must be of even lower intelligence, following blindly, and/or willfully ignorant. He is so stupid it hurts.
Here's the problem with evolution. It goes hand in hand with believing there is no higher power, which would make life pointless. Basically saying, that we're here by randomness for no reason at all, but to be here. I personally believe God is that higher power. If any of you who reject him had the least bit of faith, you would feel him working in your lives.
@stupidcomments101 Instead, you call Him a myth and just a way to put organization on the earth. You claim that science has proven him wrong. You claim that science is "right" because it is "proven". The truth is that both are uncomprehendable. Both are way too complicated to fully understand or prove. Now, it's your decision to believe what science says, or what a higher power says.
Please Mr. Hovind, if you're such the scientist you claim that you are, prove that your almighty God exists. And don't start referring to the Bible, guess what? That was written by man, not God, MAN.
I'll be in awe if you can come up with something that's not "prove that he doesn't", which is the kind of argument you ridicule in this video, or an argument based on the Bible.
We find evidence in the fossil record, of dinosaurs evolving for 160 million years, through 3 major time periods. 65 million years ago, they disappeared from the fossil record in the last of 5 mass extinctions,
He might be able to present half-truths (and sometimes just lies and false info) to fool people who aren't educated into thinking the universe is only a few thousand years old.
But he sure as fuck couldn't even begin to provide any evidence that would prove that the bible is anywhere near accurate at answering the questions of the universe. You can't just say "this really old book says it happened, and i was told in church it's all true, so that must be the explanation."
That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. If you don't believe in god, ignore preachers?
No, I'm going to hear them out for what they have to say. If god creating everything 6 thousand years ago was a sound theory, Hovind wouldn't have anything to worry about. But it's full of major loopholes and innacuracies, and I like to see how this amazing Ph.D in Bullshit is going to account for them, and for the most part, he lies.
elements806 Your the one who is taking the religion of false science and believing it as if it were true. There is no evidence for billions of yrs. at all and it is ridiculous to think there is. No matter how you want to try and spin it. That type of thinking will do nothing but hinder any true science. Where are the benefits? There is not one. You are following nothing but an army of earth worshipers who will lead you to nowhere.
A Cepheid is a member of a class of pulsating variable stars. The relationship between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and pulsation period is quite precise, securing Cepheids as viable standard candles and the foundation of the Extragalactic Distance Scale.
They use a Cephied because they know how bright it is. If you know how bright it is, you can figure out how far away it is, dimmer , farhter away. When you know how far it is away, you know the age of the light.
i get what you are saying, i know about magnitude and luminosity but i cannot figure how you can precisly determine the distance that a star is based off of how bright it is. we do not have a "map" of the universe, so we cannot measure light-years to inches.
i see that all you are saying it "its based off of a guess". THANKYOU that is all i wanted to hear.
mor like, it could be up to 10 billion years off. we have not yet found a way to accuratly measure light. so we use sojourners cat. if we could find out the AGE of the light that comes from those stars it would be different. be we cannot.
oh, and note, i keep all my debates with other people for research, don't cop a hissy and start screaming curse words. it just makes you look bad.
Ever heard of triangulation? Parallax? Mathematics? You can figure out the distance to objects without actually having to go there. The greeks did that thousands of years ago. Looks like you're a little bit behind aren't ya? Fucktard.
ok bye, running off as you know i am correct, a scientific theory is a theory. which means it is nothing but guesswork with circumstantial evidence involved
bye bye, oh stupid one.
oh and you will likly respond to me, proving yourself to be a hypocrite.
...i do not know what a "fucktard" is. it seems like a word only the mentally incapable would invent...
ok, mr trangularion. i want to to stand in the middle of a cave, pitch black. with a lightbulb on X amount of yards from you. it is very dark, all you can se is the light, nothing else to compare it to.
I would encourage you to quit using that lie as an excuse to NOT listen to the Message Hovind is trying to get across to that dormant, 3-pound, grey-matter organ you keep hidden in that haystack on your head.
His message is, all science is wrong or I can't be right. All he does is make up crap for the people who have never opened a science book. Those who have know he is lying.
Try paying attention instead of not even watching the video. If you think evolution is all science then you just don't have a clue. What lie? What does he make up? If you don't like it then don't hang around. You have not made any comments worth listing anyway so what is the point? If you can only misinterpret what he says and spew your own nonsense on top of that then I guess your just visibly a liar yourself and nothing more. Don't attack something you don't understand.
Maybe if you did your own research, you would be able to make your own decisions. I have seen videos by Christians, and videos by Atheists, and both make perfect sense because they use their arguments in a biased manner.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, I do not have a college degree, seeing as I am still in middle school, but I can see that he isn't giving a legitimate argument. I was just saying that for people that are too lazy to do their own research, both arguments are reasonable given that the people who are making them want the listener to believe them, and will try to discredit the other, even by means of disinformation. I do believe however that Kent believes what he is saying, and cannot call him a liar for it.
No, I said that if you are too lazy to do your own research, either side's argument would make sense. Reading a science book would be doing your own research. You completely missed the point of my comment.
I'm under the impression that you think I support him, which do not. I'm just saying for the uneducated sheep that is the average American, this would be research.
Also, his petty linguistic attempts are ridiculous.
The Middle English use of an a- prefix on a word was more often an intensifier, so while to "muse" meant to "gape, to ponder" to "amuse" originally meant that same thing, but more intensely. Chaucer, John Florio, and Francis Lee all use it like this as early as the 16th century.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Dikrech cool that means that an "A" Theist is one who intensely believes in a supreme being . And they're just better at believing in god than the rest of us.
what makes you thin bible is any more reliable than other religious texts.
hindus have concept of millions and billions of years.. i wonder where did they get the idea from?
religions have usefull civilizing customs & but there's no need to take the allegorical stories literally .. before science people lacked the language & detailed knowledge to explain nature, so they personify it
Religion used to be all about making society work. If you outlaw things, people still do them if noone's watching. If you make them believe them a god is always watching and punishing them in the end, they're more likely to not break the law.
The earth spins faster than the moon orbits. The Earth turns the water and the water pulls on the moon. So the moon is accelerated by the earth. The earth slows a little and the moon goes into a slightly higher orbit. It's a bad assumption to say the moon moves at a constant rate away from the earth.
That is a good point to make, and it is one reason that I find these systems abhorrent, as well as just plain dumb.
To be a "christian" you have to believe in a Human-Centric Universe. This is simply not the case. We live on a small rock, orbiting a medium mass star, at best 20% of this rock is suitable for us to live on it, and 99% of all things that have called earth home are dead!
The only ones claiming that an animal can up and give birth one day to a completely different animal, are the christians.
The "bible"teaches Super-Evolution, and that is why no one credible accepts the "bible's" version of evolution. According to the "bible," one pair of animals became dogs, coyotes, wolves, and foxes, etc. and in less than 3,000 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@RebelGuy95 Rebel Guy, Less than 3000 years? more like 4500 Anyhow, Micro evo. is just that, coyote from wolf or such like that. MACRO EVO. is where Creationist and Evo. disagree... mostly With Macro you need millions of M.L and the SAME M.L. With Macro you don't need God and Bible isn't true, with macro all things come from a beginning outside of a God... It's funny though, Macro is unobservable. Scientific Method recquires something be observable. Micro is Obv. and fits with God.
1Bryanmacan, you may want to run your numbers again. People have already been hunting these animals for at least 600 years, i.e. fox hunting in England, etc. That means it was more like 3,000 years or less!
They are fundamentally different animals. If a dog mates with a coyote, the pups will be relatively healthy. If a Great Dane mates with a wolf, the pups are sterile and are at far greater risk for some diseases.
Guess who came up with the concept of microevolution? Yeah it was the evolutionists! So now you're basically going to pick and choose the part of evolution you like and discard the part that you don't like. You either accept ALL of evolution or you accept none.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To everyone. Before you turn your back on Christ understand that Evolution isn't even a good reason it has more holes in it's UNOBSERVED theory than a chain link fence running a 1/8 mile. Jesus Christ lived and fulfilled the prophecies, His death fulfilled some more and the rest will be fulfilled when He returns His 10 commandments are not there to hit you but show you why a personal relationship with Christ will suffice for our sins and make us holy before God.10/10 die. Read Mark Cahill's book
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gregrutz is not up to date with the times. The ratio is nearly 50/50, Kent Hovind is just one of the many who says evolution is wrong and the evolutionist themselves cannot make up their minds half the time. How do you know 99% of species are extinct, where are those fossils, you still can't find any M.L and your explanations, gregrutz, for not needing M.L or where they are is ridiculous, not science, and a foolish answer.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Whare are all of the millions, no, billions of deformed missing links that should be scattered around if we evolved over millions of years? And why doesn't anyone know how such a complex structure (one out of the many) such as the eyeball, could evolve randomly, not guided, and exposed to the harshness of life. mammals evolving would have died long before their eyes could evolve. The Joy and peace that a relationship with Jesus Christ brings is not worth casting away for this theory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You don't understand the question nor do I expect a reasonable answer for it. How could the eyeball evolve? You just indicated that mammals evolve from eyeballs? Perhaps you didn't mean that. Nonetheless you guys (rubixcube, gregrutz, and Rebelguy) never really answer the question, you have a blind faith that everything which exists is unguided and moves toward perfection and you wish for some reason to make others beleive it too. YOU beleive you're a specimen with no real worth sorry for u dude
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gregrutz, You know this...how? Do you not understand the complexity of the universe? In a harsh envioronment like say...the outdoors, essentially added to your "Billions of needed years" our eyeball could not be peiced together w/o an Intelligent Designer. Just one complexity example. You beleive no God so you must beleive "In the Beggining...Nothing" Human artifacts go 10000 years at most. Beyond that, evolutionist say Billions of years ago, sudden Bang! Ort Cloud! Or crawling slime.........Us!
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional". Nothing was trying to turn into something else. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change is indeed in the fossil record.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gregrutz, I understand if you do not beleive your own Beleif (Evolution) It's very weird. We should see transitional forms, no way around it. In a photo album I don't go from being a child to a man, there is a transition clearly seen. 2 creatures evolve towards being a lion, one acheives it, the other doesn't and dies b/c not able to evolve with survival of the fitest and so it dies, where are the fossils for the "unequipped wannabe lion" you beleive things "evolve" so you need full Mis. Links.
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional". Nothing was trying to turn into something else. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change is in the fossil record.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gregrutz does not understand evolution. EV recquires that all life forms evolve from something else. An alligator does not come from soup or a bird or such overnight. There should be missing links, an Dr. of evolution will admit as much. There are no missing links, the question is unanswered. You play word games and just pull stuff out of your hat to make people chase rabbits. Answer the question, "Where are the missing links and quit sounding foolish with saying the fossils today are ML
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@gregrutz , gregrutz, I watched it and laughed because it still does not answer the question. Where are the millions we should be finding? We could find so many human grave yards and so many dogs, cats, 12 T-Rex's and such. Where are the millions of these transitional fossils. I want to see the quantity not the "LOOK long and hard enough to beleive THIS fossil is a M.L between seals in the water and animals on land" If there were missing links, Evolutionist would be finding them all over. Think
Evolutionary Biologists are actually showing us that over these millions of years ( which have indeed passed ) animals have fundamentally changed. Environment and other ecosystemic change is the greatest known cause for genetic variation / mutation.
Science does require either the event itself to be observable, or obersvable evidence that can be used in supporting / ruling out hypothesis. This is precisely why "intelligent design" was not allowed in public schools.
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional". Nothing was trying to turn into something else. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change is indeed in the fossil record.
That is true, and they have to be within 1 billion miles of the Sun to begin to melt and form their tail. As per Ganymede, the strength of the observed field and Ganymedes high degree
of central condensation [C/MR2 = 0.3115 where C is the axial
moment of inertia, and M and R are the satellite mass and radius respectively (Anderson et al., 1996; Schubert et al., 2004)]
suggest that dynamo action within a metallic core generates the
magnetic field (Schubert et al., 1996; Sarson et al., 1997).
THANK YOU for pointing out Ganymede. I also did research and found the same info, but I couldn't figure out how to phrase it so that people would understand. I'm betting that there are many who won't, but at least it was pointed out...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gregrutz, are you saying that all of the matter in the entire universe of which we have not seen the end of, was squeezed into one very constipated sized area? You are willing to step into eternity when you die, with that belief? Law Conservation of Angular Momentum has disproven the proposed Big Bang Theory for some time. Where are the missing links to prove we evolve? Lucy? found several miles apart on the day that the grant money would run out? I'm sorry. Even w/o Christ i can't accept this.
1Bryanmacan, it is also noteworthy that the term "big bang" was coined by the Theory's detractors, who were trying to insinuate that it involved a massive explosion, when the actual Theory says no such thing.
RebelGuy, Look in any public school text book and you can fined the coined term Big Bang and the meaning described above. If you disagree with what the Evolutionist World as a whole advertise about this theory, inform of what Big-Bang you are talking about. The one Evolutionist use to describe the orgin of time space and matter is basically what I described, the one that Angular Momentum would dissaprove.
No, it wouldn't. I went to a public high school, and I now attend a very secular university. I have never, once, in my entire life heard of such nonsense. The "big bang" was a term invented by men like Hovind to deceive people back in the 1940's. The name is used now because, sadly, it stuck and it is a quick and easy way to convey this subject, since it is a widely known term.
1) I have studied each topic and evidence he has presented, and I have found absolutely NO FLAW. All the facts he presents are all as accurate as the fact, Michael Jackson says Hee-Hee' in many of his songs.'
2) He's a true God-fearing Christian. The average Christian doesnt WANT to lie, and Hovind has stated MANY times that he wants to be RIGHT all the time.
3) When you say he's a liar, you're either confused or you're deliberately lying yourself.
He does not have to be accurate. One does not have to know a lot of crap science to believe in God. It is called faith. And since God does exist one had better believe His word over man's word. It will all make sense to the saved souls. Amen
gregrutz, have you not listened to Kent Hovind who gets reliable sources? Tree rings do not go back 11, 300 years, and if they did as you say, then they were around too late for everything else to have evolved. "Shell evolved 500 million years ago" you say. Tell me how you know. That is a large number. It is about Truth. A true Christian, not talking everyone who says they are, but those who truly beleive, know that 10/10 people die and they're going somewhere.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In fact, it gets hot and then cold a whole lot more than even five times a year up in Greenland. You are so willing to say the earth could now be 20,000 years old when evolution requires (in the fantasy novel of scientist) the earth being billions of years old. I'm not attacking anyone however, my desire is that everyone come to the realization of Jesus Christ as I and others have. No one (even Kent) is attacking science, just a theory that is unobservable on whole and displaces the Lord.
It was an estimation.. a 5 year old could tell you that was an estimation, lol, and even so it still proves my point that it's faulty. By next year scientists may change it to 4.7 billion years old, someone really said that.
1Bryanmacan, no one with an even semi-sufficient understanding of the Cosmos says that we came from a dot. No one. There is no center to the Universe, therefore, there was no "dot" friend, lol. There was no single massive explosion, and by the way, the law of "Conservation of Angular Momentum" wouldn't even apply to the big bang. The big bang did not create stars and galaxies bud.
He is trying to prove Biology, Geology and Astronomy wrong, but he doesn't know enough about them to do it. He only fools bible packes, the rest of us know better.
He does have to be accurate if he is talking about science. Science is based on facts, not his type of bull shit.
He is only trying to prove the "Eliminate God" theory of Evolution wrong. A man would not stand long if he went around trying to dissaprove provable, observable science, you cannot dissaprove it. But Evolution cleary is not observable lest it be Micro which Genesis walks hand in hand with. Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve. Look for Truth rather than spending what time you have sticking to a theory b/c you ight dislike some self proclaimed "Christian". Christ is Truth.
1Bryanmacan - your statement 'Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve' is total nonsense, and comes from a regular quote-mine which conveniently misses out the following sentences where Darwin explains how it could have evolved. Either you've never bothered to read it for yourself or you're being deliberately ignorant and/or deceptive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
KrokrX
(Darwin 1872)
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to dif. distances, for admitting dif....ect." you know the quote and it ends with "I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." He goes on to list a whole bunch of ifs and maybes. Ever looked at a gecko lizard? Tell me how it evolved. If EVO. is true, why should you care what I beleive, go live your life, it's all you have.
1Bryanmacan - I couldn't care less what you believe, but I do care when you deliberately try to misrepresent someone. Perhaps you value honesty less highly than the rest of us, its seems to be an all too common trait among certain types of creationists, despite most proclaiming their supposed Christian values. You're free to say you don't accept the theory of evolution in whatever way you like but don't be lazy and repeat an old well refuted quote-mine and lie.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
KrokrX
Let's talk about honesty for a moment. You attack me for describing a direct quote, I read his explanations, he uses a whole lot of ifs, and maybes. Now, discuss honesty; evolutionist publishing companies are still telling eight year olds that the slits on an embryo which develop into an ear Scientifically show we share ancestry with fish b/c those slits are gills. C. Darwin says "absurd in the highest degree" and then goes on to talk about why he BELEIVES it could evolve. Shows no EV
1Bryanmacan - sorry, but you stated ''Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve' based on an old quote-mine, when he clearly went on to state how he thought it had. That was dishonest, and now you even try to excuse your behaviour. Even if your vague accusations were accurate it still wouldn't excuse your own dishonesty.
Yes, I displayed the quote and yes Darwin does go on to say how he THOUGHT it had. There is no proof. An eyeball is so complex. You obviously are an atheist so I must say you have more faith than I. Science thoeires must be observable KENT's videos show much evidence which contradicts macro and cosmic evolution. He's never had the opp. to work with the IRS They suddenly arrest him. MY uncle has a 400,000 $ fine, he's never seen a jail cell + is currently hiding his assests So WHY Kent
1Bryanmacan - you've already displayed your ignorance of real science, perhaps you should visit sites other than AIG/DI/ICR. As for Hovid, here's one quick demolition of Hovind's comet hypothesis to explain the flood - watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss, and here's another demolishing his other hypothesis for the same flood - watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o .
1Bryanmacan - Thak you for at last accepting that Darwin thought the eye had evolved. My original comment merely pointed out your dishonesty in stating that 'Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve'. Don't you accept the commandment that you shouldn't bear false witness?
1Bryanmacan - BTW, you shouldn't boast about your uncle owing a $400,000 fine and hiding his assets as an IRS employee could get your IP from Google and trace you, and then your uncle might get an unexpected visitor. It's also quite telling that you don't seem to have a problem with his dishonesty, it clearly runs in the family.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
KrokrX, listen. I started writing b/c others were quoting wrong things and showing no proof for their statements. They would say "Big Bang is real you Creationist idiots." Sorry, science stands against it so I had to write. Kent (AND many others) discard the thory and use science to do so. I write b/c I do beleive Jesus Christ is the Only Way Truth and Life. In that sense I care for even your eternal destination. If you would just search Truth with an open mind perhaps you would agree.
1Bryanmacan - as for your claim that Hovind uses science, I can only assume that you didn't watch the videos I referenced. Hovind has little understanding of any field of science, and perhaps your own science education needs improvement if you see him as any kind of authority on scientific matters.
@KrokrX That's all people like to argue about... "you don't know what your talking about", "your a petty punk because you went to jail" on and on and on... We all got problems and it's not with the time bickering back and fourth on youtube, about random topics, with people you don't know.
Matter can not be created or destroyed. (Go Google that statement) if god had a creator, he would not be god.
I can take this many so ways, but for the sake of time that's all I have to say...
1Bryanmacan - I see that one of my comments has quickly been marked as spam - is that you or one of your friends? If you'd quickly admitted your 'mistake' about Darwin, with whatever feeble excuse, I'd have let it pass, but instead you felt the need to defend your dishonesty and attempted to obfuscate the matter by raising all sorts of other issues, and finally even mentioning your uncle's illegal activity. That sort of behaviour doesn't reflect well on the wider Christian community here on YT.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are foolish. You assume I approve of my uncle's behavior and therefore openly tell of his illegal activity on YT? He deserves Jail time. He's done a lot worse things as a lawyer even. MY point is regarding the whole Kent story. He speaks out against a lot of things, many beleive he was put behind bars so they can QUIET him down. The IRS knows about my uncle and THEY"RE working with him. It's procedure to do so, they work with people. THey arrest KENT H. in middle of night with no warning.
Bryanmacan did no such things nor one of his friends. I don't run in a pack here on YT. THis isn't my life. You keep attacking me on dishonesty. Am I speaking to a child? I told you I quoted Darwin's quote and I boldly say his explanations are hog wash thories. ANd yes Macro. EVO. does have racisim in it, you can hardly search to find it. You KROKRX, refuses to find it. You claim dishonesty in others and yet do not show it. I told you I read DAR's explanation and I say it is Hog Wash...again.
1Bryanmacan - I don't care why you 'started writing', I only commented on your statement 'Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve', but you've subsequently admitted that he believed it had evolved, and in fact Darwin said so in the sentences immediatley following the quote-mine you referred to. That's what started our dialogue, but instead of admitting this promptly you tried to obfuscate by introducing other elements I didn't challenge you on. That confirmed your dishonesty.
Alright, I overlooked where you were coming from. Darwin did say the quote and then goes on to explain why he thought it could evolve. Darwin did beleive it could evolve in his own sense and you pointed that out correctly, (I had to go back and read it again) nonetheless, it doesn't change any science facts against Evo. nor does it mean that the eyeball could evolve, Darwin does not provide proof and that is where I was coming from. You were right on what Darwin beleived. But D. isn't right
1Bryanmacan - thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it. I hadn't wanted to change your view on evolution, as that is all but impossible in 500 char snippets, I just wanted to correct a frequently used quote-mine/lie used by too many creationists.
1Bryanmacan - If you noticed I didn't say it was you that marked my comment as spam, I asked, and happily accept your assurance.
I'm really not interested in your uncle's dealings with the IRS, and as for Kent Hovind, I couldn't care less, he's a convicted felon which speaks to his dishonesty. In both cases you introduced them into a conversation that started by simply pulling you up about misrepresenting Darwin.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
KrokrX. Look at a gecko and see if you can understand how he evolved. There are so many other extrodinary creatures (Mark Cahill's Book One Heart Beat Away Chapter 3) or Kent Hovind Debates (numerous ones) or Ken Ham's Science articles (you'll find many examples) MOST Creationist only spread their message b/c they are concerned. Origin of Species is racial, Reason why it was accept in 1859, Scientist first rejected it while the masses accepted it. Find much more on Kent Hovind (Dangerof Evo)
1Bryanmacan - thanks for giving me one of the biggest laughs I've had in a long time. If you really think that Kent Hovind or Ken Ham are reliable sources for scientific information then you really are too sad for words. If you care to look around YT you'll find plenty of people taking great delight in showing what ignorant nonsense they spout, particulalry convicted felon Kent Hovind.
Okay, no KentHovind source, go read Descent of Man and Origins of species. Ken Ham is highly notable as well, Mark Cahill, Ray Comfort....you can't even explain how a gecko evolves with your thoery, why didn't Kent lose debates if he's so wrong, and Darwin did make that quote and he didn't back it up with anything but his own DEVELOPING thoery based highly on rasism and so it was accepted and is today defendent by those who claim "nothing made everything" you have a lot of FAITH bud.
1Bryanmacan - I don't know about you but if I have a dental problem I don't ask a plumber, and if I want science advice I don't ask a preacher. Not content with your first lie you now try to claim that Darwin's theory was 'based highly on rasism' which is utter nonsense, and a further attempt to sully Darwin's name, what next the usual Nazi claim? You really are a dishonest YEC.
1Bryanmacan - the only people who claim "nothing made everything" are the AIG/DI/ICR in their mischaracterisation of what they commonly call 'evolutionism' as they conflate the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution. Once again you are blatantly dishonest. Debating science with a YEC is like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Sigh, more creationist igorance and scientific illiteracy. Lets just point out one fact Kent here is "willingly ignorant" of; comets do not begin to lose a thing until they get within one billion miles of the Sun. Beyond that point they are in deep freeze Kent. He would do well to look up any noteble comet, like Shoemaker-Levy 9 before opening his mouth to a bunch of children in an audience that do not have to grow up ignorant and scientifically illiterate.
"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.)
...is this a joke? Why is he talking about planets and moons etc? His precious "bible" doesn't even mention these things in the "creation account" This is just a bad joke....Kent here talking about things that disprove he book literally hundreds of times over. Why does it not mention the other planets in our solar system or the 95+ moons? Why does it not mention the 300+ planets found orbiting other stars?! It doesn't because the liars writting this crap didn't know about them then....That's why
If you are going to reply to one of my comments I ask that it be clear and concise; relevant and coherent. I now ask you to reiterate whatever it is you were trying to ask / get across.
Still not answering questions I see. Ah, well, no matter. If you meant that I will embrace the creed of ignorance and lies that all too many blindly follow; no sir or mam I will not. The more facts and knowledge one gains, the less satisfied you can ever be believing in such none sense. My original post still stands, that is why it was voted down. The truth hurts. I am truly sorry that "Genesis" is a joke but it is. Therefore, one has to move on, to find the truth; or, at least they should.
Ummmm....God's Holy Word does talk about the moons and stars. Try reading it. Google is your friend. Jesus Loves you and wants you to get to know him.
There is no such entity, but okay. Anyhow, no your "god" did not mention the other planets and their moons, not even collectively as many infer "he" or "it" did about the stars, being the "lesser light" See you "religion" is man made. When those men wrote these "scriptures" they were ignorant to the fact that Jupiter was out there and had over 50 moons. You subscribe to a creed of ignorance and outright lies, enjoy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Again, google can be your friend. Saturn is mentioned in Amos chapter 5, Read Job, read Isaiah, good grief just google, "mention of stars in the bible"
I'm not going to get in an online debate with you. All you have to do is pray this prayer:
"Holy Spirit, If your real, open my eyes to you."
I can't help but believe that if you really prayed that, it would be answered.
No books and scientific journals are my friend. No, the paradoxes of your nonsense is truly incredible. Not only is there no evidence of "design" for us period but there is evidence to the contrary. Lol, that's great man. The stars are collectively mentioned, I will give you guys that. However, what about the 300+ exosolar planets? Yep, over 300 other planets found orbiting other stars!....acting as their sun? No mention of the atom or the cell either. There is lots of magic though so enjoy.
Yeah, I just read Amos 5 ( KJV ) and it says nothing about Saturn bud. "Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night..." ROFL that was a close as it got. So there are 7 stars now hm?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Amos 5:26 (KJV) Moloch is the cult that worshiped Saturn. (NIV) Kaiwan is another word for Saturn itself. Again, google.
All it takes it to sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to reveal himself to you and open your eyes if he is indeed real. Then when you dig, so many things will reveal themselves to you that you previously thought were nonsense.
I read the whole chapter in the KJV (Kent's apparent favorite bible) and it says nothing of saturn. Also, Saturn is not "accounted" for in the "creation account" and neither are any of the other planets in our solar system, their moons or the more than 300+ known planets orbiting other stars aka whole other solar systems. Lets not for get all the debris that eviscerate any possibilty of "design." It was utter chaos and to a point still is. Enough of your lies man, give it up.
39 people had their toes stepped on.
balvear 3 months ago
Well my toes got stepped on on that one lol I like football
porter3320 8 months ago
They may have saw the Oort could but you don't have to see something to know it exists. You can actually disprove something but it is very hard and much easier to prove it exists. No Young Earth Creationism and Evolution not that there is only those two but they most definitly are not just opposites even though a large fraction of both of them are opposite. It is wrong to even try and think this way.
RJL738 8 months ago
Again the concept of losing implies a constant rate and makes a fundemental assumption, it's this kind of logical equivocation that makes good science tedious at best, it takes away too much energy. I personally believe our Solar System has an extensive Oort Cloud it may be more than 100 times more massive than they say, I firmly believe we have one.
RJL738 8 months ago
It is true the Moon goes around the Earth but the Earth and the Moon have a baracenter with one another meaning that the Earth wobbles severly due to the Moon going around it. You can't use the receding Moon as an argumant for a young Earth because this assumes the Moon was moving away at the same rate, it could be as the Moon moves farther away to recedes faster, think about it.
RJL738 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Narrow Naughty girls and ladies here benaughtyman.info
sabithaperera 1 year ago
Face. Palm.
8DX 1 year ago
Two points.
1. Evolution exclusively deals with speciation, not abiogenesis or cosmology. Stop saying "the theory of evolution says that the stars..." You sound stupid.
2. The "a" prefix does not only mean "not." From its French-Latin origin it means "away from," abbreviated from "ab." "Amuse" literally means "to divert from serious thought," not "without thought."
2. You want to play the burden of proof game? I wouldn't if I were you. It tends to not be too friendly to sky wizards.
PookySharif 1 year ago
NOT ONE of this idiot's claims stand up to even the least bit of scrutiny. If you believe him you must be of even lower intelligence, following blindly, and/or willfully ignorant. He is so stupid it hurts.
brj0207 1 year ago
Someone said "I wish Carl Sagan would come back to life and kill this man!"
FOR WHAT?!
For legitimately introducing people to evidence that they are never shown in pro-New World Order schools?!
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
Here's the problem with evolution. It goes hand in hand with believing there is no higher power, which would make life pointless. Basically saying, that we're here by randomness for no reason at all, but to be here. I personally believe God is that higher power. If any of you who reject him had the least bit of faith, you would feel him working in your lives.
stupidcomments101 1 year ago
@stupidcomments101 Instead, you call Him a myth and just a way to put organization on the earth. You claim that science has proven him wrong. You claim that science is "right" because it is "proven". The truth is that both are uncomprehendable. Both are way too complicated to fully understand or prove. Now, it's your decision to believe what science says, or what a higher power says.
stupidcomments101 1 year ago
Please Mr. Hovind, if you're such the scientist you claim that you are, prove that your almighty God exists. And don't start referring to the Bible, guess what? That was written by man, not God, MAN.
I'll be in awe if you can come up with something that's not "prove that he doesn't", which is the kind of argument you ridicule in this video, or an argument based on the Bible.
Get back to me will you? :)
MikeySwe 1 year ago
There is no ort cloud,
but there is a loc ness monster?!?
And people believe this IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
We find evidence in the fossil record, of dinosaurs evolving for 160 million years, through 3 major time periods. 65 million years ago, they disappeared from the fossil record in the last of 5 mass extinctions,
That also killed a majority of the life on earth.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Search Kent Hovind debunked
and you computer will overload/
First winner of THE Golden Crocoduck Award, right here on youtube.
gregrutz 1 year ago
He might be able to present half-truths (and sometimes just lies and false info) to fool people who aren't educated into thinking the universe is only a few thousand years old.
But he sure as fuck couldn't even begin to provide any evidence that would prove that the bible is anywhere near accurate at answering the questions of the universe. You can't just say "this really old book says it happened, and i was told in church it's all true, so that must be the explanation."
elements806 2 years ago
It's easy dude, if you don't believe in God, IGNORE HIM! Case Close.
KongSiengFong 1 year ago
That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. If you don't believe in god, ignore preachers?
No, I'm going to hear them out for what they have to say. If god creating everything 6 thousand years ago was a sound theory, Hovind wouldn't have anything to worry about. But it's full of major loopholes and innacuracies, and I like to see how this amazing Ph.D in Bullshit is going to account for them, and for the most part, he lies.
elements806 1 year ago
elements806 Your the one who is taking the religion of false science and believing it as if it were true. There is no evidence for billions of yrs. at all and it is ridiculous to think there is. No matter how you want to try and spin it. That type of thinking will do nothing but hinder any true science. Where are the benefits? There is not one. You are following nothing but an army of earth worshipers who will lead you to nowhere.
MinnesotaNorthStar 1 year ago
you cannot prove it is 13 billion years old without a control, no control, no validity.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
Yes, they can prove objects are 13 billion light years away from us.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no control group, no validity, where is their control group,
oh yeah, its just sojourners cat.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
A Cepheid is a member of a class of pulsating variable stars. The relationship between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and pulsation period is quite precise, securing Cepheids as viable standard candles and the foundation of the Extragalactic Distance Scale.
wikipedia
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
??? that is not only extreamly biased and based wholly on guesswork.
1. no control no validity
2. this is impossible to measure based off of physics. unless you measured the age of light that comes off of the stars.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
They use a Cephied because they know how bright it is. If you know how bright it is, you can figure out how far away it is, dimmer , farhter away. When you know how far it is away, you know the age of the light.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how can you accurately measure the distance of stars based off of this data?
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
sorry, I forgot you don't understand logic, math or science.
a Cepheid variable's luminosity and pulsation period is quite precise.
So they know how bright ir is by how fast it pulses.
If you know how bright it is you can tell how far away it is.
And it is 13 Billion light years away !!
Get real
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz
i get what you are saying, i know about magnitude and luminosity but i cannot figure how you can precisly determine the distance that a star is based off of how bright it is. we do not have a "map" of the universe, so we cannot measure light-years to inches.
i see that all you are saying it "its based off of a guess". THANKYOU that is all i wanted to hear.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz
no, it EXACTLY what you said.
"If you know how bright it is you can tell how far away it is."
just like looking at a lightbulb a mile away from you in pitch blackness and trying to guess its distance in inches. its just a guess.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
Yea, they could be a million years off.
the universe might be 13.1 Billion years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz
mor like, it could be up to 10 billion years off. we have not yet found a way to accuratly measure light. so we use sojourners cat. if we could find out the AGE of the light that comes from those stars it would be different. be we cannot.
oh, and note, i keep all my debates with other people for research, don't cop a hissy and start screaming curse words. it just makes you look bad.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
Ever heard of triangulation? Parallax? Mathematics? You can figure out the distance to objects without actually having to go there. The greeks did that thousands of years ago. Looks like you're a little bit behind aren't ya? Fucktard.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago 4
@therealiceveela
You don't use controls for an observation. Do you even know what a control is? What an idiot.
LaingGod 1 year ago
coming from someone who believes this is fact and not still a theory, i would say it was you...
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
wow this fucktard doesn't even know what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is. Pretty much speaks for itself, this argument is over.
Potoholic 1 year ago
ok bye, running off as you know i am correct, a scientific theory is a theory. which means it is nothing but guesswork with circumstantial evidence involved
bye bye, oh stupid one.
oh and you will likly respond to me, proving yourself to be a hypocrite.
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
@theREALiceveela
gravity is a fact, there is a theory that shows how it works, even is we don't know why.
Evolution happened, proven fact. There is a theory that shows how it happened.
A scientific theory is not just a guess.
Search >> kent hovind debunked
and your computer will blow up
gregrutz 1 year ago
...i do not know what a "fucktard" is. it seems like a word only the mentally incapable would invent...
ok, mr trangularion. i want to to stand in the middle of a cave, pitch black. with a lightbulb on X amount of yards from you. it is very dark, all you can se is the light, nothing else to compare it to.
now tell me, how far away is that lightbulb?
theREALiceveela 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
latest episodes is available here. view online now. clicktvshows{.}net
Kristidunstoni 2 years ago
Wrong: As per Ganymede, the strength of the observed field and Ganymedes high degree
of central condensation [C/MR2 = 0.3115 where C is the axial
moment of inertia, and M and R are the satellite mass and radius respectively (Anderson et al., 1996; Schubert et al., 2004)]
suggest that dynamo action within a metallic core generates the
magnetic field (Schubert et al., 1996; Sarson et al., 1997).
RebelGuy95 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hovind pwns once again, check and mate.
Dobogio 2 years ago
The liar is in jail.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
"Kent Hovind is a liar!"
I would encourage you to quit using that lie as an excuse to NOT listen to the Message Hovind is trying to get across to that dormant, 3-pound, grey-matter organ you keep hidden in that haystack on your head.
fortruth8989 1 year ago
@fortruth8989
His message is, all science is wrong or I can't be right. All he does is make up crap for the people who have never opened a science book. Those who have know he is lying.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Try paying attention instead of not even watching the video. If you think evolution is all science then you just don't have a clue. What lie? What does he make up? If you don't like it then don't hang around. You have not made any comments worth listing anyway so what is the point? If you can only misinterpret what he says and spew your own nonsense on top of that then I guess your just visibly a liar yourself and nothing more. Don't attack something you don't understand.
MinnesotaNorthStar 1 year ago
@MinnesotaNorthStar
Watching him lie gives me a headache.
If you think anything he says in not just crap he made up, then you don't understand.
All he does is jump from one thing that proves the earth is old to the next.
Bashing science in every sentence.
Type in Kent Hovind debunked and your computer will overload.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@fortruth8989
He is wrong about science, why should I listen to his view of religion?
gregrutz 1 year ago
Maybe if you did your own research, you would be able to make your own decisions. I have seen videos by Christians, and videos by Atheists, and both make perfect sense because they use their arguments in a biased manner.
BrawlMasterROB 2 years ago
@BrawlMasterROB "....seen videos by Christians, and videos by Atheists..."
If you want to learn about Biology or Geology or Astronomy, why don't you watch a video by a SCIENTIST !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BrawlMasterROB
Have you ever read a science book?
Geology? Biology?
Anyone with a college degree[one step up from his education] in any science can see Kent lies.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, I do not have a college degree, seeing as I am still in middle school, but I can see that he isn't giving a legitimate argument. I was just saying that for people that are too lazy to do their own research, both arguments are reasonable given that the people who are making them want the listener to believe them, and will try to discredit the other, even by means of disinformation. I do believe however that Kent believes what he is saying, and cannot call him a liar for it.
BrawlMasterROB 1 year ago
@BrawlMasterROB
He has been show he is wrong and still keeps doing it.
You probibly think the evidence is about even on both sides.
WRONG. Read a science book.
gregrutz 1 year ago
No, I said that if you are too lazy to do your own research, either side's argument would make sense. Reading a science book would be doing your own research. You completely missed the point of my comment.
BrawlMasterROB 1 year ago
@BrawlMasterROB
Yes, reading a science book is research.
Listening to Kent make up excuses is not research.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I'm under the impression that you think I support him, which do not. I'm just saying for the uneducated sheep that is the average American, this would be research.
BrawlMasterROB 1 year ago
Also, his petty linguistic attempts are ridiculous.
The Middle English use of an a- prefix on a word was more often an intensifier, so while to "muse" meant to "gape, to ponder" to "amuse" originally meant that same thing, but more intensely. Chaucer, John Florio, and Francis Lee all use it like this as early as the 16th century.
This man does not know what he is talking about.
Dikrech 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Dikrech cool that means that an "A" Theist is one who intensely believes in a supreme being . And they're just better at believing in god than the rest of us.
ferdnerkel 2 years ago
I like the part where he calls God retarded. This man is despicable.
Dikrech 2 years ago
5:51, irony strikes again ;)
frostzor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hovind is only just trying to help you guys get out of the mess that Eisenhower put you in.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
what makes you thin bible is any more reliable than other religious texts.
hindus have concept of millions and billions of years.. i wonder where did they get the idea from?
religions have usefull civilizing customs & but there's no need to take the allegorical stories literally .. before science people lacked the language & detailed knowledge to explain nature, so they personify it
walter0bz 2 years ago
Religion used to be all about making society work. If you outlaw things, people still do them if noone's watching. If you make them believe them a god is always watching and punishing them in the end, they're more likely to not break the law.
pschierhorn 2 years ago
agreed.
walter0bz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
amen not a lot of poeple realize he was the one who put all the evolution in there
negsurbansports1234 2 years ago
The earth spins faster than the moon orbits. The Earth turns the water and the water pulls on the moon. So the moon is accelerated by the earth. The earth slows a little and the moon goes into a slightly higher orbit. It's a bad assumption to say the moon moves at a constant rate away from the earth.
sjh7132 2 years ago
99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extinct, they were all transitional fossils.
Creationist need evolution to explain how they got all the animals on the boat. Now just admit the earth is millions of years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago 7
That is a good point to make, and it is one reason that I find these systems abhorrent, as well as just plain dumb.
To be a "christian" you have to believe in a Human-Centric Universe. This is simply not the case. We live on a small rock, orbiting a medium mass star, at best 20% of this rock is suitable for us to live on it, and 99% of all things that have called earth home are dead!
RebelGuy95 2 years ago 6
The only ones claiming that an animal can up and give birth one day to a completely different animal, are the christians.
The "bible"teaches Super-Evolution, and that is why no one credible accepts the "bible's" version of evolution. According to the "bible," one pair of animals became dogs, coyotes, wolves, and foxes, etc. and in less than 3,000 years.
RebelGuy95 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@RebelGuy95 Rebel Guy, Less than 3000 years? more like 4500 Anyhow, Micro evo. is just that, coyote from wolf or such like that. MACRO EVO. is where Creationist and Evo. disagree... mostly With Macro you need millions of M.L and the SAME M.L. With Macro you don't need God and Bible isn't true, with macro all things come from a beginning outside of a God... It's funny though, Macro is unobservable. Scientific Method recquires something be observable. Micro is Obv. and fits with God.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan, you may want to run your numbers again. People have already been hunting these animals for at least 600 years, i.e. fox hunting in England, etc. That means it was more like 3,000 years or less!
They are fundamentally different animals. If a dog mates with a coyote, the pups will be relatively healthy. If a Great Dane mates with a wolf, the pups are sterile and are at far greater risk for some diseases.
RebelGuy95 2 years ago 3
@Bryanmoron
Guess who came up with the concept of microevolution? Yeah it was the evolutionists! So now you're basically going to pick and choose the part of evolution you like and discard the part that you don't like. You either accept ALL of evolution or you accept none.
NegativeBeef 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To everyone. Before you turn your back on Christ understand that Evolution isn't even a good reason it has more holes in it's UNOBSERVED theory than a chain link fence running a 1/8 mile. Jesus Christ lived and fulfilled the prophecies, His death fulfilled some more and the rest will be fulfilled when He returns His 10 commandments are not there to hit you but show you why a personal relationship with Christ will suffice for our sins and make us holy before God.10/10 die. Read Mark Cahill's book
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Pakicetus ->
Ambulocetus ->
Rhodocetus->
Basilosaurus ->
Protocetus ->
Indocetus ->
Prozeuglodon ->
Eocetus->
Modern Whales
gregrutz 2 years ago 6
99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extinct, all of them are transitional fossils.
Why does a science teacher think he knows more than all the other scientists?
Idiot should be in jail for lying.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gregrutz is not up to date with the times. The ratio is nearly 50/50, Kent Hovind is just one of the many who says evolution is wrong and the evolutionist themselves cannot make up their minds half the time. How do you know 99% of species are extinct, where are those fossils, you still can't find any M.L and your explanations, gregrutz, for not needing M.L or where they are is ridiculous, not science, and a foolish answer.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Your hero Kent is in jail for fraud, I don't trust what he says,
They found the missing links, you should keep up with the times.
gregrutz 2 years ago 5
He's not even a real science teacher. Can you imagine the crap that's he's been teaching for "15 years?"
NegativeBeef 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whare are all of the millions, no, billions of deformed missing links that should be scattered around if we evolved over millions of years? And why doesn't anyone know how such a complex structure (one out of the many) such as the eyeball, could evolve randomly, not guided, and exposed to the harshness of life. mammals evolving would have died long before their eyes could evolve. The Joy and peace that a relationship with Jesus Christ brings is not worth casting away for this theory.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
You don't understand evolution. Animals had eyes before mammals evolved from them.
Natural selection is not random.
for you fossils.......watch
transitional fossils 1 NEW
gregrutz 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You don't understand the question nor do I expect a reasonable answer for it. How could the eyeball evolve? You just indicated that mammals evolve from eyeballs? Perhaps you didn't mean that. Nonetheless you guys (rubixcube, gregrutz, and Rebelguy) never really answer the question, you have a blind faith that everything which exists is unguided and moves toward perfection and you wish for some reason to make others beleive it too. YOU beleive you're a specimen with no real worth sorry for u dude
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
You just indicated that mammals evolve from eyeballs?
No dip shit, mammals evolved from animals that already had eyes.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gregrutz, You know this...how? Do you not understand the complexity of the universe? In a harsh envioronment like say...the outdoors, essentially added to your "Billions of needed years" our eyeball could not be peiced together w/o an Intelligent Designer. Just one complexity example. You beleive no God so you must beleive "In the Beggining...Nothing" Human artifacts go 10000 years at most. Beyond that, evolutionist say Billions of years ago, sudden Bang! Ort Cloud! Or crawling slime.........Us!
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
evolutionist say Billions of years ago
No, geologist say the earht is millions of years old.
Nuclear Chemists say the earth is billions of years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You are the one that believes.
Poof, god made everything from nothing.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional". Nothing was trying to turn into something else. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change is indeed in the fossil record.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gregrutz, I understand if you do not beleive your own Beleif (Evolution) It's very weird. We should see transitional forms, no way around it. In a photo album I don't go from being a child to a man, there is a transition clearly seen. 2 creatures evolve towards being a lion, one acheives it, the other doesn't and dies b/c not able to evolve with survival of the fitest and so it dies, where are the fossils for the "unequipped wannabe lion" you beleive things "evolve" so you need full Mis. Links.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Watch transitional fossils 1 new
gregrutz 2 years ago
billions of deformed missing links
Now they have to be deformed, Why?
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional". Nothing was trying to turn into something else. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change is in the fossil record.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gregrutz does not understand evolution. EV recquires that all life forms evolve from something else. An alligator does not come from soup or a bird or such overnight. There should be missing links, an Dr. of evolution will admit as much. There are no missing links, the question is unanswered. You play word games and just pull stuff out of your hat to make people chase rabbits. Answer the question, "Where are the missing links and quit sounding foolish with saying the fossils today are ML
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Watch transitional fossils 1 new
by DonExodus2 for all the missings links you can't seem to find.
gregrutz 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@gregrutz , gregrutz, I watched it and laughed because it still does not answer the question. Where are the millions we should be finding? We could find so many human grave yards and so many dogs, cats, 12 T-Rex's and such. Where are the millions of these transitional fossils. I want to see the quantity not the "LOOK long and hard enough to beleive THIS fossil is a M.L between seals in the water and animals on land" If there were missing links, Evolutionist would be finding them all over. Think
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Evolutionary Biologists are actually showing us that over these millions of years ( which have indeed passed ) animals have fundamentally changed. Environment and other ecosystemic change is the greatest known cause for genetic variation / mutation.
Science does require either the event itself to be observable, or obersvable evidence that can be used in supporting / ruling out hypothesis. This is precisely why "intelligent design" was not allowed in public schools.
RebelGuy95 2 years ago 7
The point that you are missing is that if you pick any fossil from the fossil record it is a COMPLETE SPECIES. No fossil by it self will ever be "transitional". Nothing was trying to turn into something else. If you have two species, one evolving from the other, and you found a fossil of the first changing into the second, that middle fossil will still be a complete species. The gradual change is indeed in the fossil record.
gregrutz 2 years ago 7
Human artifacts go 10000 years at most.
Yes, and your hero Kent says the earth is only 6000 years. Thanks for proving him wrong.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
roflmao, Make up a story and prove me wrong. DUH!!! the Evolution of religion ppl.
archabe 2 years ago
Comets prove the universe is not billions of years old? Not all the comets in existance are as old as our universe or galaxy or even our sun...
Dhesyca 2 years ago 4
That is true, and they have to be within 1 billion miles of the Sun to begin to melt and form their tail. As per Ganymede, the strength of the observed field and Ganymedes high degree
of central condensation [C/MR2 = 0.3115 where C is the axial
moment of inertia, and M and R are the satellite mass and radius respectively (Anderson et al., 1996; Schubert et al., 2004)]
suggest that dynamo action within a metallic core generates the
magnetic field (Schubert et al., 1996; Sarson et al., 1997).
RebelGuy95 2 years ago
THANK YOU for pointing out Ganymede. I also did research and found the same info, but I couldn't figure out how to phrase it so that people would understand. I'm betting that there are many who won't, but at least it was pointed out...
Dhesyca 2 years ago 2
The universe is getting bigger, it is expanding at an expanding rate.
It use to be smaller in the past.
and smaller, and smaller and Big Bang therory.
Yes, we hate liers.
The moon is moving away at less then 1.5 in. per year.
gregrutz 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gregrutz, are you saying that all of the matter in the entire universe of which we have not seen the end of, was squeezed into one very constipated sized area? You are willing to step into eternity when you die, with that belief? Law Conservation of Angular Momentum has disproven the proposed Big Bang Theory for some time. Where are the missing links to prove we evolve? Lucy? found several miles apart on the day that the grant money would run out? I'm sorry. Even w/o Christ i can't accept this.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Lucy. Ardi. It does not matter, Kent will make something up as to why science is wrong and he is smarter than everyone else.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
1Bryanmacan, it is also noteworthy that the term "big bang" was coined by the Theory's detractors, who were trying to insinuate that it involved a massive explosion, when the actual Theory says no such thing.
RebelGuy95 2 years ago
RebelGuy, Look in any public school text book and you can fined the coined term Big Bang and the meaning described above. If you disagree with what the Evolutionist World as a whole advertise about this theory, inform of what Big-Bang you are talking about. The one Evolutionist use to describe the orgin of time space and matter is basically what I described, the one that Angular Momentum would dissaprove.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
No, it wouldn't. I went to a public high school, and I now attend a very secular university. I have never, once, in my entire life heard of such nonsense. The "big bang" was a term invented by men like Hovind to deceive people back in the 1940's. The name is used now because, sadly, it stuck and it is a quick and easy way to convey this subject, since it is a widely known term.
RebelGuy95 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 or you're deliberately lying yourself.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
He does not have to be accurate. One does not have to know a lot of crap science to believe in God. It is called faith. And since God does exist one had better believe His word over man's word. It will all make sense to the saved souls. Amen
geodashamayim 2 years ago
It is not about God, It is about a book that says the earth is only 6000 years old.
Tree rings go back 11,300 years.
Shell evolved 500 million years ago.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
gregrutz, have you not listened to Kent Hovind who gets reliable sources? Tree rings do not go back 11, 300 years, and if they did as you say, then they were around too late for everything else to have evolved. "Shell evolved 500 million years ago" you say. Tell me how you know. That is a large number. It is about Truth. A true Christian, not talking everyone who says they are, but those who truly beleive, know that 10/10 people die and they're going somewhere.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Tree rings do go back 11,300 years, but I am sure Kent has a lie to explain it away. Ice cores go back farther, but they don't count for some reason.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
He personally explains the ice core rings Gregrutz. And they are an unreliable source for the earth being old.
The rings simply say it got "warm, then cold" and that can happen like 5 times a year up at Greenland. it's unreliable.
PFC33 2 years ago
100,000 ice rings divided by 5, that makes the earth at leat 20,000 years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In fact, it gets hot and then cold a whole lot more than even five times a year up in Greenland. You are so willing to say the earth could now be 20,000 years old when evolution requires (in the fantasy novel of scientist) the earth being billions of years old. I'm not attacking anyone however, my desire is that everyone come to the realization of Jesus Christ as I and others have. No one (even Kent) is attacking science, just a theory that is unobservable on whole and displaces the Lord.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
No one (even Kent) is attacking science, just a theory that is unobservable on whole and displaces the Lord.
That is all Kent does, try to prove science wrong, ALL science.
He does it for one reason, the same reason you have, it displaces the Lord.
Sorry if the facts don't match your bible.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good your on the right track, and it could've been more than 5 times in a single year, could've been less in others, it's an estimation.
But your finally using reasoning, good job, lets see if we can get you down to 10,000 years.
PFC33 2 years ago
200 years ago, geologist discovered the earth is millions of years old, but keep trying.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
It was an estimation.. a 5 year old could tell you that was an estimation, lol, and even so it still proves my point that it's faulty. By next year scientists may change it to 4.7 billion years old, someone really said that.
PFC33 2 years ago
Right now the age of the earth stands at
4,566 million years, + or - 2 million.
It could change a little.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
1Bryanmacan, no one with an even semi-sufficient understanding of the Cosmos says that we came from a dot. No one. There is no center to the Universe, therefore, there was no "dot" friend, lol. There was no single massive explosion, and by the way, the law of "Conservation of Angular Momentum" wouldn't even apply to the big bang. The big bang did not create stars and galaxies bud.
RebelGuy95 2 years ago
He is trying to prove Biology, Geology and Astronomy wrong, but he doesn't know enough about them to do it. He only fools bible packes, the rest of us know better.
He does have to be accurate if he is talking about science. Science is based on facts, not his type of bull shit.
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
He is only trying to prove the "Eliminate God" theory of Evolution wrong. A man would not stand long if he went around trying to dissaprove provable, observable science, you cannot dissaprove it. But Evolution cleary is not observable lest it be Micro which Genesis walks hand in hand with. Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve. Look for Truth rather than spending what time you have sticking to a theory b/c you ight dislike some self proclaimed "Christian". Christ is Truth.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with God. It is Science. Science does not use the supernatural, it does not change any experiment.
Glad you do believe in M. Evolution,
gregrutz 2 years ago 3
1Bryanmacan - your statement 'Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve' is total nonsense, and comes from a regular quote-mine which conveniently misses out the following sentences where Darwin explains how it could have evolved. Either you've never bothered to read it for yourself or you're being deliberately ignorant and/or deceptive.
KrokrX 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KrokrX
(Darwin 1872)
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to dif. distances, for admitting dif....ect." you know the quote and it ends with "I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." He goes on to list a whole bunch of ifs and maybes. Ever looked at a gecko lizard? Tell me how it evolved. If EVO. is true, why should you care what I beleive, go live your life, it's all you have.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - I couldn't care less what you believe, but I do care when you deliberately try to misrepresent someone. Perhaps you value honesty less highly than the rest of us, its seems to be an all too common trait among certain types of creationists, despite most proclaiming their supposed Christian values. You're free to say you don't accept the theory of evolution in whatever way you like but don't be lazy and repeat an old well refuted quote-mine and lie.
KrokrX 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KrokrX
Let's talk about honesty for a moment. You attack me for describing a direct quote, I read his explanations, he uses a whole lot of ifs, and maybes. Now, discuss honesty; evolutionist publishing companies are still telling eight year olds that the slits on an embryo which develop into an ear Scientifically show we share ancestry with fish b/c those slits are gills. C. Darwin says "absurd in the highest degree" and then goes on to talk about why he BELEIVES it could evolve. Shows no EV
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - sorry, but you stated ''Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve' based on an old quote-mine, when he clearly went on to state how he thought it had. That was dishonest, and now you even try to excuse your behaviour. Even if your vague accusations were accurate it still wouldn't excuse your own dishonesty.
KrokrX 2 years ago 5
@KrokrX
Yes, I displayed the quote and yes Darwin does go on to say how he THOUGHT it had. There is no proof. An eyeball is so complex. You obviously are an atheist so I must say you have more faith than I. Science thoeires must be observable KENT's videos show much evidence which contradicts macro and cosmic evolution. He's never had the opp. to work with the IRS They suddenly arrest him. MY uncle has a 400,000 $ fine, he's never seen a jail cell + is currently hiding his assests So WHY Kent
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - you've already displayed your ignorance of real science, perhaps you should visit sites other than AIG/DI/ICR. As for Hovid, here's one quick demolition of Hovind's comet hypothesis to explain the flood - watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss, and here's another demolishing his other hypothesis for the same flood - watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o .
KrokrX 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
KrokrX 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1Bryanmacan - Thak you for at last accepting that Darwin thought the eye had evolved. My original comment merely pointed out your dishonesty in stating that 'Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve'. Don't you accept the commandment that you shouldn't bear false witness?
KrokrX 2 years ago 4
1Bryanmacan - BTW, you shouldn't boast about your uncle owing a $400,000 fine and hiding his assets as an IRS employee could get your IP from Google and trace you, and then your uncle might get an unexpected visitor. It's also quite telling that you don't seem to have a problem with his dishonesty, it clearly runs in the family.
KrokrX 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KrokrX, listen. I started writing b/c others were quoting wrong things and showing no proof for their statements. They would say "Big Bang is real you Creationist idiots." Sorry, science stands against it so I had to write. Kent (AND many others) discard the thory and use science to do so. I write b/c I do beleive Jesus Christ is the Only Way Truth and Life. In that sense I care for even your eternal destination. If you would just search Truth with an open mind perhaps you would agree.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - as for your claim that Hovind uses science, I can only assume that you didn't watch the videos I referenced. Hovind has little understanding of any field of science, and perhaps your own science education needs improvement if you see him as any kind of authority on scientific matters.
KrokrX 2 years ago 11
@KrokrX That's all people like to argue about... "you don't know what your talking about", "your a petty punk because you went to jail" on and on and on... We all got problems and it's not with the time bickering back and fourth on youtube, about random topics, with people you don't know.
Matter can not be created or destroyed. (Go Google that statement) if god had a creator, he would not be god.
I can take this many so ways, but for the sake of time that's all I have to say...
djfantom205 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Joshua271987
1Bryanmacan - I see that one of my comments has quickly been marked as spam - is that you or one of your friends? If you'd quickly admitted your 'mistake' about Darwin, with whatever feeble excuse, I'd have let it pass, but instead you felt the need to defend your dishonesty and attempted to obfuscate the matter by raising all sorts of other issues, and finally even mentioning your uncle's illegal activity. That sort of behaviour doesn't reflect well on the wider Christian community here on YT.
KrokrX 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are foolish. You assume I approve of my uncle's behavior and therefore openly tell of his illegal activity on YT? He deserves Jail time. He's done a lot worse things as a lawyer even. MY point is regarding the whole Kent story. He speaks out against a lot of things, many beleive he was put behind bars so they can QUIET him down. The IRS knows about my uncle and THEY"RE working with him. It's procedure to do so, they work with people. THey arrest KENT H. in middle of night with no warning.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
Bryanmacan did no such things nor one of his friends. I don't run in a pack here on YT. THis isn't my life. You keep attacking me on dishonesty. Am I speaking to a child? I told you I quoted Darwin's quote and I boldly say his explanations are hog wash thories. ANd yes Macro. EVO. does have racisim in it, you can hardly search to find it. You KROKRX, refuses to find it. You claim dishonesty in others and yet do not show it. I told you I read DAR's explanation and I say it is Hog Wash...again.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - I don't care why you 'started writing', I only commented on your statement 'Charles Darwin even knew that the eyeball couldn't evolve', but you've subsequently admitted that he believed it had evolved, and in fact Darwin said so in the sentences immediatley following the quote-mine you referred to. That's what started our dialogue, but instead of admitting this promptly you tried to obfuscate by introducing other elements I didn't challenge you on. That confirmed your dishonesty.
KrokrX 2 years ago 7
Alright, I overlooked where you were coming from. Darwin did say the quote and then goes on to explain why he thought it could evolve. Darwin did beleive it could evolve in his own sense and you pointed that out correctly, (I had to go back and read it again) nonetheless, it doesn't change any science facts against Evo. nor does it mean that the eyeball could evolve, Darwin does not provide proof and that is where I was coming from. You were right on what Darwin beleived. But D. isn't right
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it. I hadn't wanted to change your view on evolution, as that is all but impossible in 500 char snippets, I just wanted to correct a frequently used quote-mine/lie used by too many creationists.
KrokrX 2 years ago 6
1Bryanmacan - If you noticed I didn't say it was you that marked my comment as spam, I asked, and happily accept your assurance.
I'm really not interested in your uncle's dealings with the IRS, and as for Kent Hovind, I couldn't care less, he's a convicted felon which speaks to his dishonesty. In both cases you introduced them into a conversation that started by simply pulling you up about misrepresenting Darwin.
KrokrX 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
KrokrX. Look at a gecko and see if you can understand how he evolved. There are so many other extrodinary creatures (Mark Cahill's Book One Heart Beat Away Chapter 3) or Kent Hovind Debates (numerous ones) or Ken Ham's Science articles (you'll find many examples) MOST Creationist only spread their message b/c they are concerned. Origin of Species is racial, Reason why it was accept in 1859, Scientist first rejected it while the masses accepted it. Find much more on Kent Hovind (Dangerof Evo)
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - thanks for giving me one of the biggest laughs I've had in a long time. If you really think that Kent Hovind or Ken Ham are reliable sources for scientific information then you really are too sad for words. If you care to look around YT you'll find plenty of people taking great delight in showing what ignorant nonsense they spout, particulalry convicted felon Kent Hovind.
KrokrX 2 years ago 4
@KrokrX
Okay, no KentHovind source, go read Descent of Man and Origins of species. Ken Ham is highly notable as well, Mark Cahill, Ray Comfort....you can't even explain how a gecko evolves with your thoery, why didn't Kent lose debates if he's so wrong, and Darwin did make that quote and he didn't back it up with anything but his own DEVELOPING thoery based highly on rasism and so it was accepted and is today defendent by those who claim "nothing made everything" you have a lot of FAITH bud.
1Bryanmacan 2 years ago
1Bryanmacan - I don't know about you but if I have a dental problem I don't ask a plumber, and if I want science advice I don't ask a preacher. Not content with your first lie you now try to claim that Darwin's theory was 'based highly on rasism' which is utter nonsense, and a further attempt to sully Darwin's name, what next the usual Nazi claim? You really are a dishonest YEC.
KrokrX 2 years ago 3
1Bryanmacan - the only people who claim "nothing made everything" are the AIG/DI/ICR in their mischaracterisation of what they commonly call 'evolutionism' as they conflate the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution. Once again you are blatantly dishonest. Debating science with a YEC is like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
KrokrX 2 years ago 3
Amazing how being a science teacher makes you an expert in Astornomy, Biology, Paleoentology, DNA, Chemistry, Math and Geology.
This guy is Good...........NOT.
gregrutz 2 years ago 4
Wow, Kent is an Astronomer, too.
I thought he was a Biologist, Geologist, DNA expert, Paleontologist, etc., etc., etc.
etc.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Awesome. True
NoneBeforeNoneAfter 2 years ago
Sigh, more creationist igorance and scientific illiteracy. Lets just point out one fact Kent here is "willingly ignorant" of; comets do not begin to lose a thing until they get within one billion miles of the Sun. Beyond that point they are in deep freeze Kent. He would do well to look up any noteble comet, like Shoemaker-Levy 9 before opening his mouth to a bunch of children in an audience that do not have to grow up ignorant and scientifically illiterate.
RebelGuy95 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
...is this a joke? Why is he talking about planets and moons etc? His precious "bible" doesn't even mention these things in the "creation account" This is just a bad joke....Kent here talking about things that disprove he book literally hundreds of times over. Why does it not mention the other planets in our solar system or the 95+ moons? Why does it not mention the 300+ planets found orbiting other stars?! It doesn't because the liars writting this crap didn't know about them then....That's why
Joseph565112 2 years ago 2
For whom you did this? Who is that idol of yours? What is his name? Tell us.
howtoplanaparty 2 years ago
If you are going to reply to one of my comments I ask that it be clear and concise; relevant and coherent. I now ask you to reiterate whatever it is you were trying to ask / get across.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 2
Give it a few years. The meanin will sink in.
howtoplanaparty 2 years ago
Still not answering questions I see. Ah, well, no matter. If you meant that I will embrace the creed of ignorance and lies that all too many blindly follow; no sir or mam I will not. The more facts and knowledge one gains, the less satisfied you can ever be believing in such none sense. My original post still stands, that is why it was voted down. The truth hurts. I am truly sorry that "Genesis" is a joke but it is. Therefore, one has to move on, to find the truth; or, at least they should.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 3
Ummmm....God's Holy Word does talk about the moons and stars. Try reading it. Google is your friend. Jesus Loves you and wants you to get to know him.
Don't get left behind.
thebirdbath 2 years ago
There is no such entity, but okay. Anyhow, no your "god" did not mention the other planets and their moons, not even collectively as many infer "he" or "it" did about the stars, being the "lesser light" See you "religion" is man made. When those men wrote these "scriptures" they were ignorant to the fact that Jupiter was out there and had over 50 moons. You subscribe to a creed of ignorance and outright lies, enjoy.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again, google can be your friend. Saturn is mentioned in Amos chapter 5, Read Job, read Isaiah, good grief just google, "mention of stars in the bible"
I'm not going to get in an online debate with you. All you have to do is pray this prayer:
"Holy Spirit, If your real, open my eyes to you."
I can't help but believe that if you really prayed that, it would be answered.
thebirdbath 2 years ago
No books and scientific journals are my friend. No, the paradoxes of your nonsense is truly incredible. Not only is there no evidence of "design" for us period but there is evidence to the contrary. Lol, that's great man. The stars are collectively mentioned, I will give you guys that. However, what about the 300+ exosolar planets? Yep, over 300 other planets found orbiting other stars!....acting as their sun? No mention of the atom or the cell either. There is lots of magic though so enjoy.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 4
Yeah, I just read Amos 5 ( KJV ) and it says nothing about Saturn bud. "Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night..." ROFL that was a close as it got. So there are 7 stars now hm?
Joseph565112 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Amos 5:26 (KJV) Moloch is the cult that worshiped Saturn. (NIV) Kaiwan is another word for Saturn itself. Again, google.
All it takes it to sincerely ask the Holy Spirit to reveal himself to you and open your eyes if he is indeed real. Then when you dig, so many things will reveal themselves to you that you previously thought were nonsense.
He really does exist. :) Just try it.
thebirdbath 2 years ago
I read the whole chapter in the KJV (Kent's apparent favorite bible) and it says nothing of saturn. Also, Saturn is not "accounted" for in the "creation account" and neither are any of the other planets in our solar system, their moons or the more than 300+ known planets orbiting other stars aka whole other solar systems. Lets not for get all the debris that eviscerate any possibilty of "design." It was utter chaos and to a point still is. Enough of your lies man, give it up.
Joseph565112 2 years ago 4