(Kent Hovind) Creation Seminar 1 - Age of the Earth Part 13

[RJL738]

It is a bit disrespectful to quantify nature however old the Earth is our environment is orders of magnetude my mysterious on a good day than we realise this is something to be excited about and take as a challeng to make us grow. It is wrong for him to assume that the same structures would stay around for most of the hystory of the Earth, the Earth changes alot more than that.

[RJL738]

It is true that many material that make up the bodies of living things are in unrecognisable places but those are just natural cicles of the circulation of material. people do need to communicate well in order to get research done quicker. When people argue over stuff it creates unnecisary friction and wasts energy if it were not for this we would be much further along.

[RJL738]

It doesn't seem like it at first and maybe there are reasons for it but there are inherant problems in having makeshift equations. It is often easy to get lost in segways when talking about evidence for something, it is dangerious tog et this rigorous sometimes because it leads to paradoxes layered against side stories against definitions of adequets evidence.

[brj0207]

Stupid is forever...well i guess Kent can't be fixed :/

[chattiestspike2]

They don't take core samples from active glaciers which is what the lost squadron landed on. Period. Done. Argument dead

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

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?!

[gregrutz]

assuming those are annual rings?

[changes subject to planes on a moving glacier]

"It is warm cold, warm cold You get 5 a week around here"

But in Greenland, warm cold, happenes a year apart, What an IDiot.

[Imaginefree69]

Hovind? The failed auto mechanic? The uneducated, violent fraud artist who has been charged with assault, convicted of fraud, and is currently in prison? I mean, okay, he has a white lab jacket, and he's a great poster boy for Creationism, but nobody in their right mind would go to Hovind for scientific facts, reality, or any sort of truth! Even Jesus warned about teachers with rotten fruit. Don't you believe Jesus, either?

[DrHonestruth1959]

They had to lock him to try to silience him. Kent Hovind debunked is garbage.

[gregrutz]

Kent must be stupid, he can't be fixed.

[herbs814]

@gregrutz

Kent is an intelligent researcher. You can't be so stupid as to PRETEND you can just dismiss him.

[Phyerbyrd]

What experiments has he done? How has he tested them? Do they hold up to scrutiny?

[spurnthemuse]

@gregrutz Projection. SPURN THE MUSE!!

[gregrutz]

Kent must be stuipid, he can't be fixed.

[gregrutz]

The river is 30,000 years old. Before that the center of the US was a shallow sea.

[herbs814]

@gregrutz

The river is 4000 years old. Before that there was a flood.

[gregrutz]

The first geologist went looking for evidence of the global flood.

They believed the bible story, like all people of the time.

They couldn't find any evidence of a GLOBAL flood, None.

They found that the deeper you dig, the more primitive the life forms you find.

They studied the rocks and concluded the world was Millions of years old,

Before dating methods were discovered that showed the earth is Billions of years old.

[gregrutz]

What Flood, there is no evidence for a flood.

Tree rings go back unbroken 10000 years.

Ice Cores go back 135,000 years

He has been shown he is wrong and he keeps on lying.

[herbs814]

@gregrutz

Rings form more than once a year. Your assumption that a tree ring or an ice core ring is an "annual" ring has been completely debunked.

[gregrutz]

@herbs814

The only person to debunk it is Kent, and he has never done an experiment in his life, he just makes up whatever fits the bible.

The lost planes landed on a moving glacier.

[gregrutz]

@herbs814 Rings form more than once a year

Rarely, not enough to fool scientists.

[BadChristians]

4:42 Hovind actually taught science in school at one time? Scary. The ice layers are called "annual" because they are used to calculate years (hence the word annual). There MAY be two periods where the temperature rises above freezing in one year's time in Greenland, but in the North or South Pole there are actually periods where the temperature NEVER gets above freezing in one calendar year! Hovind has the intellectual reasoning of a first grader! (my apologies to first graders)

[herbs814]

@BadChristians

The layers are ASSUMED to be years. They are not. Layers form several times a year with freeze and thaw cycles. The idea of the rings corresponding to a year have been completely debunked.

[gregrutz]

@herbs814 No, some IDiot named Kent just said it.

The geologic column is everywhere, it is a TIME scale.

[herbs814]

@gregrutz

The geologic column is a conjecture that has NO relationship to anything in reality. It exists nowhere but in textbooks.

[gregrutz]

@herbs814

The geologic column is a time scale, not layers of rock.

[gregrutz]

By 6000 BC Egyptians in the southwestern corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture: cattle, goats, pigs and sheep. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.

[herbs814]

@gregrutz

Your dates are completely phony. There was no 6th millennium BC. These phony dates are based on false assumptions that have been completely debunked.

[gregrutz]

Type kent hovind debunked

into you computer and find the TRUTH

[spurnthemuse]

@gregrutz Yes, mr. robot, mr. zombie, mr. tape recorder, mr. parrot. SPURN THE MUSE!!

[Phyerbyrd]

What evidence do you have that there wasn't? In spite of other historical evidence, archaeological findings and even various dating techniques, you think the world was created in 4000 BCE, who's the phony here?

[herbs814]

@Phyerbyrd

all the archeological findings and dating techniques are dependent on the assumption that the earth was the same thousands of years ago, that there was no flood or catastrophic change. All of your evidence is phony.

[spurnthemuse]

@Phyerbyrd You haven't been payin attention. Obviously a careless reporter. Maybe even a "plant". SPURN THE MUSE!!

[Phyerbyrd]

Hovind is wrong in all contexts when it comes to what you just said, radiometric dating is accurate, transitional forms exist and there are no genetic barriers.

[gregrutz]

@herbs814

The freeze and thaw cycles are call winter and summer.

[gregrutz]

He just showed the earth was 30,000 years old, because there is no evidence of a flood.

[frostzor]

4:41, kent twisting it so badly. can't stand this guy seriously.. hes calculation sucked ass.. based on his own knowledge, so flawed. and bout the ice.. dude shut up.. hes mixin it all up, ofcourse he gets confused, he can't seperate anything. 5:46 drawing conclusions based on shit. comparing non related masses :/ gimme a break

[deftonesfanatf]

@frostzor So quit complaining and give everyone a logical explanation based on your research. Quit attacking and start defending your own position.

[frostzor]

@deftonesfanatf LMFAO excuse me?

I think religion needs some to defend, wich they can't, cuz its false. I do'nt have to defend shit, study objectively and find out. But no, that takes time, effort, brains, ppl don't want that, thats why religion rules the world. sheeps, simple, faithfull. that's the way it goes. I say kent is wrong on kinda everything he say, its offensive as defensive, its just how you look at the certain subject. I rather explain something based on logic, then be some sheep

[ferdnerkel]

@frostzor and your explanation of polystrate trees and short period petrification is what? and as for the ice cores i have observed snow accumulations in my back yard with as many as 5 layers. in your view that translates to a 5 year accumulation of snow in my back yard. you know now that i think about it it was cold for a long time i must have just lost track of time, it wasn't really 5 days it was 5 years.

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

4:33 how true

[walter0bz]

this man is a self-serving dangerous liar, feeding on mass stupidity

[TheEsotericVoice]

I really think it's sad how faith and science are frequently pitted against each other as intellectual or moral opponents. Christianity's central message teaches that salvation is through faith in Christ and God's grace, not through embracing the "right" existential speculation. Both excerpts the Bible and evolution's explanations for origins can be used by those familiar with them to discredit faith and promote evildoing. Shouldn't the individual behind their beliefs, applying them, rather than

[TheEsotericVoice]

the convictions themselves be determinate of their duplicitous or immoral intents? :/

[TheEsotericVoice]

*Whoops, meant to say "Both excerpts from the Bible and evolution's..."

Of course, a lot of needlessly bickering involving the Bible and science stems from the false belief that the Bible is a science book at all. I only meant to illustrate that whatever one's values, "creationist" or "evolutionist", their personal implementation and not the principles themselves should determine what is morally sound or spiritually contradictory. Peace and God bless all.

[mcpencil]

@TheEsotericVoice

Religion creates excuses for people to do bad things and abuse power, which wouldn't exist in the absence of said religion. Of course people would find other ways to abuse power, but religions was invented to produce the easiest means to those ends.

[gregrutz]

135,000 rings, a little difference from 6000 year old earth. i am sure the guy in jail is right.

[gregrutz]

The planes were on a moving glacier, what an IDiot.

[gregrutz]

What flood? There is no geologic evidence for a global flood.

Tree rings go back 11,000 years.

Ice cores go back 135,000 years.

Some IDiots can't understand evidence.

[gregrutz]

Kent is the smartest man on earth, smarter than every biologist, smarter than any geologist, smarter than any anthropologist, smarter than any paleontologist. smarter than all scientist!

He can prove all science wrong !!!

[gregrutz]

The airplanes landed on a moving glacier, what a dip shit.

He didn't say anything to debunk the 130,000 annual rings.

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

What I like about Hovind is he is willing to think contrary to popular belief. He wants to shake up the science world and cause progression not regression of thinking. Not all of science is absolute. Nothing wrong with cleaning up some of the old unproven science is there? Maybe he is wrong is some areas. maybe he is right in others and we should take a close look at everything. Some people get psychotic and hateful over Hovinds theories like they are losing there minds or souls.

[gregrutz]

anyone who has a high school education can see how silly Kent's theories are.

Ever study geology? I didn't think so.

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

Why don't they find Dinosaur bones in the OIL? Maybe the Oil did not come from dinosaurs.

[gregrutz]

So why don't we find bunny fossils buried with the dinosaur fossils?

Why don't we find dinosaur fossils buried with the trilobite fossils?

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

I am merely making assumptions you guys also make.. How the bones got buried is what to look for. Flooding, massive Water movement and Breaking of the Crust is an option. Water under the crust Broke forth. How the bones were buried had to do with what location the animal lived in, what type of sediment was present, amount of water present, rate of flooding, amount of breaking of the crust, amount of rise or fall of the broken plates, where animals were located. Lots of scenarios to think about.

[PFC33]

Gregrutz, everything has a different density in water, that being said, the flood would have buried them separately. They would float for a while, and fall down where sediments would cover them. Guess what lies on top. Birds.

They are most buoyant and thus evolutionists think that's what evolved from reptiles and it's also why birds aren't buried with dinosaurs. It also explains how the same kind of animal was spread around over the continents.

[gregrutz]

so trilobites are heavy,

dinosaurs are medium,

and humans are light?

It is not that simple.

stay in school, read a science book.

[PFC33]

Trilobites are slow, and humans are smart enough to get to a hill to avoid drowning at the last minute, that's why few human fossils are found, but they're still found. As for dinosaurs I'm unsure, but they're dumber than human beings and quicker than trilobites.

Get out of school, use reasoning...

[gregrutz]

Yes, the dinosaurs just walked half way up the hill and just stopped for no reason.

That is why they stopped making fossils 65 million years ago.

[PFC33]

65 million years ago there wasn't time/space/matter at all, and your statement only proves my point, the flood wiped a majority of them all out (there are fresh dinosaur bones found today) because the flood killed them, buried rapidly and the next layers pressurized them making fossils. Fossils rarely happen today because they are rarely buried and pressurized, that's why there aren't any "new" ones.

[gregrutz]

Stay in school, read a science book.

[PFC33]

Wow good point -gives up creation to study evolution-

All you have to do is use your reasoning. Evolution is a mistake and no scientist wants to admit it even if they have all the information in front of them. There's so much evidence against it, stop looking for loopholes, even if you find "1" it's only 1 out of a billion.

[gregrutz]

Evolution was proven 150 years ago, some bible packers don't accept it and are trying to prove it wrong. Keep trying.

[PFC33]

It's already been proven wrong, there are numerous upon numerous "facts" that prove it young, and evolution 'needs' millions and billions of years to make their theory look reasonable, without it, it looks pretty stupid, which it is, I'd be glad to give you some details if you'd like.

[PFC33]

Btw, the "theory" of evolution was "introduced" 150 years ago by Darwin, it wasn't "proven"

[gregrutz]

Evolution happened, Darwin came up with the reason it happened, natural selection. If Kent can't prove it wrong, how are you going to?

[gregrutz]

Have you checked on what they are teaching at UCLA, Harvard and Yale.

Biology and evolution.

[PFC33]

That's like saying "if the majority believes it, it must be true" it doesn't prove that it's right, they have the same information, if not slightly a bit more (and I say "more" to mean more "wrong" information), than everyone else does. It's still wrong.

[gregrutz]

they have the same information

Who is they? Creationists have never studied fossils or geology !!

[PFC33]

Oh yes they have. They've written a lot of books on the topic. If your going to post this argument on Kent Hovinds seminar videos, you better have all the information to them if your going to make a statement like that because that's a pretty stupid comment.

[ghanamuscle2000]

You are kidding, right? Humans and trilobites co-existed, but trilobites were too slow to escape rising water? It's... it's impossible to know where to start when faced with such a lunatic claim.

[PFC33]

Who says it rose slowly. When the fountains of the deep broke open, enormous amounts of water poured out.

[ghanamuscle2000]

So where did the water gcome from? Inside the Earth? That would suggest that God designed the world with a built-in self-destruct mechanism, just in case one of the species stepped out of line. Why? Could he foresee that mankind was going to become evil? In that case, why create them? Why create the trilobites only to drown them? Were they evil too?

[PFC33]

God did all things for a reason, the water within the Earth because if he made it out of nothing, why would we believe it? There would be no evidence, he does many things for this reason(evidence) so there is no excuse to turning your back on him. His reasons of creating us are his own, it's none of our business of what's his business.

[ghanamuscle2000]

But why is his business none of our business? If someone is handing down a great long list of moral diktats and saying that if I step out of line I will burn for all eternity, I want to know why. I didn't ask to be created, yet here I am, apparently forced to live by a morality I think is contradictory and in places unpleasant, but if I question either the morality or the reasons for it, I will burn forever. That's not fair!

[PFC33]

Your looking at it too much as a demanding choice rather than, metaphorically, which items can I get at the store for the cheapest amount that will last longest. He gave us free will to choose but we can easily pay more money for something that doesn't last. It won't change much of anything, your still getting what you need, but it would be easier and your life would be much better just abiding by his rules. Same reason there's rules in society, it's for the best of the people and the country

[ghanamuscle2000]

I don't understand that at all. To me it seems no different, even with the addition of free will. So god puts us here, tells us we can choose whether or not to obey his laws, but if we make the wrong choice we burn forever. That's not fair. Plus, heaven and hell are to polar opposites. There's no sort of sub-heaven to go if you're a good, kind, honest person but not a Christian.

So we have free will, but we can't exercise it because refusing to obey will result in punishment. Still not fair!

[PFC33]

Again your looking at it wrong, free will isn't necessarily do right or wrong. It's also making mistakes, but he wants us to learn from that, he tests us on a daily basis to see how we will react.

First to see if we oppose the bargain Satan gives, and if we fail, then he tests us to see if we can get out of it, hopefully passing it, then ask for his forgiveness sincerely and you shall have it.

If we couldn't make mistakes then there's no free will and we would never learn from them.

[ghanamuscle2000]

Now this just raises more questions than it answers. FIrst, why the whole Satan thing? God is all-powerful, right? SO why not just get rid of Satan? The devil's apparent existence seems to suggest that god indeed is not all-powerful; in which case, he can't be a true god as his power is retrained.

Secondly, hasn't god got better things to so with his time? Why test us on a daily basis? For a being with infinite powers, he seems strangely obsessed with what a few lowly verterbrates get up to.

[PFC33]

You've got the right observation but you come to the wrong conclusion. God is all powerful, Satan has to go to him before he does anyething to someone on Earth, that's how powerful he is, Satan can't do anything without his permission. If God did everything, good and evil, how would that make him look? People already think of him badly as it is.

And that is the key word, "time" God is not bound by it, he invented time and can be wherever, whenever.

If you had a child, wouldn't you care for it?

[ghanamuscle2000]

Wait wait. So satan is some sort of henchman for god? Then why do Christians talk about the battle between good and evil, god and the devil, if the devil is little more than a delivery-boy for god? Is this backed up by the Bible?

And if I had children, then of course I would care for them. But I wouldn't send some evil henchman to test them at every opportunity. Why does god do that? It all seems so... unnecessary. God's already got angels to sing his praises - so why bother making humans?

[PFC33]

I'm not sure where people say there's a battle between God and Satan. There is a battle of good and evil, but not of that. If any battle is taking place, only Satan is battling. You can find in the book of Job that Satan answers to God before he does things.

As I said, his business is none of our business, I can almost guarantee though that it is not about praise.

[ghanamuscle2000]

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree on the issue of his business. If I am told to do something, I like to know why.

[PFC33]

We can relate this to the child analogy again. If Dad comes home from work and he's got a lot of work to do regarding his company, and you ask if he can play with you, a good parent would say "maybe later" or "sorry, not now." The child doesn't need to know why, he just needs to understand that Dad's got bigger things going on right now.

Some kids eventually ask once in their lifetime what their parents make. That's none of their business and they need to respect that.

[ghanamuscle2000]

Well you make a fair point there. But sticking with the child analogy still; there is a difference. The child will eventually grow up and learn from experience what it is to be an adult, and thereby will understand its childhood orders from adults. But humans cannot grow up into gods, and thereby will never be capable of learning from experience what it is to be a god. So dowe remain stuck in a situation whereby we are told to obey without question without ever being able to understand why?

[PFC33]

And this is how Satan works, in the beginning, his very first sentence to Eve was a question making her doubt God. The question itself was pertaining to the notion that she could be like God.

This is where evolution came from. Satan gets people to question God and makes them think we're getting bigger and stronger and changing into gods someday through evolution.

I hope we never do understand God's reasons, because if he keeps them from us, it's only for the best.

[ghanamuscle2000]

But evolution does not make that claim. During this conversation you have been courteous and helpful in explaining to me concepts I don't understand. Thankyou for that. So please allow me to clarify this concept. Evolution does not - NOT - make any comment on where we are headed. The theory explains the diversity of life on Earth as a result of organisms adapting to environments which are in a state of perpetual change, a situation in which very occasional mutations over generations may give

[ghanamuscle2000]

one particular individual or group a slight advantage over others in the acquiisition of food or the ability to reproduce. It does not attempt to explain where life comes from and does NOT attempt to explain where life is headed - the only prediction of the future it makes is that life will continue to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Earlier, you helped clarify how Christianity is not a madman's way to send billions of people to hell for objecting against a morality imposed upon them

[ghanamuscle2000]

Therefore, please consider the possibility that the Theory of Evolution is not some evil dogma designed to facilitate racism, genocide, or any other piece of crap that Hovind claims. Let's make a deal. I am not a Christian, but I was good enough to read the Bible so as to gain a better understanding of a viewpoint other than my own. I don't agree with it, but I read it. How about you read Darwin's Theory of Evolution? It's a shorter book, and you don't have to agree with it. Just read it.

[ghanamuscle2000]

And concerning Satan being the serpent which generated evolutionary thought - as a Christian, does it not concern you that Hovind and his ilk completely ignore the millenia of ecclesiastical Christian philosophy on the story of the Garden of Eden? Is it not a sign of the man's extreme arrogance that he ignores the writings of St Justinian, Augustin of Hippon, Thomas Aquinas? All the great medieval theologians? He simply concocts his own idea and presents it as true without even mentioining

[ghanamuscle2000]

centuries of theological debate and arguments on what the apple represents, or whether the serpent was testing loyalty to divine authority, or whether the story is an analogy of duty? Far more learned men than Hovind, centuries before science as we know it existed, made far more sophisticated arguments than him. And yet Hovind ignores religious texts as much as he ignores scientific works, just to promote his own unscientific, unscriptural and frankly bizarre theories. Does that not concern you?

[PFC33]

The reason I disprove of evolution and promote creation is because it's the only sensible solution. Regardless of which is right, humans either changed into this from nothing, or we were created the way we are from nothing. Does it not make sense that someone creates the roman Colosseum out of toothpicks rather than it building itself or millions of years?

Evolution is extremely dangerous and it has proved this time and time again. God is telling us it's wrong.. and we aren't listening

[ghanamuscle2000]

I don't understand this analogy. We know the origins of the Colosseum because we can see the structure and recognise it as an artificial construct. We can read the original documents and decrees concerning its construction. So it was neither created by someone out of toothpicks nor came into being on its own. That's an odd analogy. But let us consider a beach. We know that beaches come into existence on their own. So which is more likely; that a beach came into being over a long time and the

[ghanamuscle2000]

interaction of various physical forces, or do we believe the beach was deliberately built, grain by grain, by a god?

Also, you didn't answer my question on whether Hovind's utter disregard for theological and ecclesiastical work concerns you does it?

Finally, how is evolution "extremely dangerous"? Is gravity dangerous? Is electromagnetism a threat to civilisation? And if it indeed is dangerous (and I'd like to know how so), then why doesn't God intervene and put a stop to it?

[PFC33]

I believe it, for all we know God is very lazy because he speaks everything into existence, that's how powerful he is

Whether Hovind's work concerns me or not, I left it unanswered because I have none, I don't have enough information on it, I only have your opinion

Are you familiar with WWI and WWII? You know the basis of those wars? Evolution.

Are you aware that sometimes you see people with green hair and tattoo's with nose rings? Evolution teaches they're just animals. I've got more

[ghanamuscle2000]

Oh now come on. You're telling me that the world wars were due to evolution?? Well let's take the First World War. So you are saying that, contrary to nearly a century of historical analysis, WW1 was not due to factors such as: imperial rivalry, the naval arms race, Germany's fear of geopolitical encirclement, France's desire to retake Alsace-Lorraine, Britain's fear of German industrial growth eclipsing British, Russia's desire to strengthen the monarchy following defeat in the Russo-Japanese

[ghanamuscle2000]

War, etc etc. No, instead of all those factors, it was apparently evolution? Hmm. Can you cite me a book by a reputable historian which makes this claim? You might as well make the claim that the Thirty Years' War, or the Peloponessian War, or Pharaoh Seti's war with the Hittite Empire, were the result of evolution.

On the subject of tattoos and hair - don't you think that could be because people are making an expression of their identity, rather than because they see themselves as animals?

[ghanamuscle2000]

And on a related issue - as a native-born Ghanaian, I have ceremonial scars and tattoos as a symbol of my tribal identity and cultural traditions. Not because of evolution.

I'd be fascinated to know, by the way, what reputable sociologist or anthropologist makes this claim that bodily modification (which is in fact most widespread in traditional religious cultures which have either never heard of or rejected Evolutionary Theory) is the result of a misreading of Origin of Species...

[PFC33]

I don't understand your question well, but as for why it's in other cultures who've not heard it. This proves my point more than yours I'd say. Satan uses evolution to deceive people from God, and look how well he's doing it. The fact that it's part of their religion makes it even more shocking because that is exactly what evolution is. There comes a point when scientists need to believe something happened to get here. They've never seen anything turn into something else entirely, it's religious

[ghanamuscle2000]

This is just geting more and more inconsistent. Firstly, bearing in mind my below comment, do you still assert that the First World War was started by evolution? Secondly, you mentioned earlier that Satan is little more than a henchman for God, so if (as you say) he is deceiving people, then by your own admission he is only doing it on gods behalf. Thirdly, why is it that tribal societies which have NEVER heard of evolution are more prone to bodily modification, considering that their socieities

[ghanamuscle2000]

are built around reverence to deities for which they have even less evidence thatn Christianity? You haven't answered a single question I have asked. How is evolution dangerous? What wars have ben started as a result of evolution? Why, if god hates evolution, does he not intervene?

I'll leave for now the list of wars that have been started by religious disagreements or by one group insisting that their faith is the only one. Also I will ignore, for the moment, all those occasions when

[ghanamuscle2000]

Christianity and passages in the Bible have been used as a justification for the Spanish conquistadores, the medieval Inquisition, the Slave Trade, white colonialism, burning people at the stake, burning books which dare to claim that the Earth orbits the Sun, etc etc...

[PFC33]

And it stopped being about conversion and preaching the word of the Bible primarily when greed set in.

Conquistadors search for gold led them to start chopping off indians' hands when they didn't deliver.

The slave trade was justified as a good thing because Jesus didn't speak against it in the Bible throughout his lifetime therefore they thought it was ok.

Colonialism because they wanted land, Manifest Destiny was their excuse for their greed. Etc etc...

[ghanamuscle2000]

Again, you are not answering the questions. How is evolution dangerous? What wars have been started as a result of evolution? Why, if god hates evolution, does he not intervene?

Oh, and one point you did not address was that concerning the Earth orbiting the Sun, when the Christian Church burned Galileo's books because he dared to say that Earth is not the centre of the universe. Nor did you address the medieval Inquisition. How do these two cases reflect on Christianity's "truths"?

[PFC33]

Bear with me, there's only so many questions I can answer per post.

You point out the ones I didn't answer (2) but you don't go back to the ones I did answer (3)? What are you trying to point out here.

I also don't see the relevance of Galileo's work to this topic, if you could give a bit more detail I'll try to answer. The inquisition looks mostly like the people had a problem with religion. Are you relating that to this? (I'll answer evolution later)

[ghanamuscle2000]

Ok, that was a bit of a bombardment, apologies. Let's start with the most confusing element. You say that Satan is using evolution to tempt man away from god (even those in socieites which have no concept of evolution, nor the Christian versions of god and the devil). Yet earlier, you said that satan is only acting on behalf of god. So by your own logic, satan is tempting people away from god... on god's orders. Can you explain this?

[PFC33]

This can also be answered with a past explanation, it's tests. As aforementioned, what is free will without options and the mistake of choosing the wrong option - or the right? Now I can't speak on his behalf as explained earlier, but it's possible he's testing our faith, that's just my opinion.

[ghanamuscle2000]

But if god is testing your faith by evolution, why do you want to get rid of it? This logic would imply that god has deliberately sent evolution for a reason, so why are you reacting against god's plans (however obscure they may be) to test your faith by trying to get rid of that very test?

Also, wouldn't this argument suggest that Darwin was sent by god?

[fokofpoes]

hmmm, good question

[rubixxcube]

1 buildings dont really evolve nor reproduce.

2 we know how buildings are made and how to make them.

3 we didnt form from nothing. it started out in laymans terms fish arthropods amphibeons mammals.

4 the bible says we came from dirt which was formed out of nothing.

5 how in the world is evolution dangerous!?

6 what has religion done for man anyway? theres no benefit from religion...UNLESS you believe in heaven...but nothing concrete. you have no proof of god do you?

[PFC33]

Out of your list of claims and questions, only 1 and 4 are correct.

2) If you relate that to evolution, then that's a false analogy because evolution doesn't know where it's going to end up, there are no blueprints for it, therefore its similar to building a structure without them. Complexity wouldn't be the way it is without blueprints (God)

3) If you go back far enough in time, then yes the inevitable fact is we evolved from nothing.

5) I've already explained in a past comment

*out of room

[rubixxcube]

no, in the right situations you know when and where evolution will happen. if 1% of a dog has long shaggy matted hair and the rest are short haired and a blizzard comes...is it random which will survive? no.

no we didnt. atoms and particles came together from the big bang which was an expansionn of space time and matter. now before that then yes there may have been nothing.

5 and you were refutted. ww1 was not over evolution.

6? what has it done?

[PFC33]

Not dealing primarily with evolution there. Also, that's a variation, a change within a species, it's not turning into a duck.

And according to scientists, the Big Bang created Hydrogen, so how did we get all the other elements? How did stars form? According to Boyles gas law, in an environment like space, it would just distribute.

I wasn't refuted per say as much as given more reasons for the war. I'll go into details later. (low on room)

What are you assuming religion "hasn't" done?

[ghanamuscle2000]

It seems there are two related but distinguishable threads going on here. Rubixx is pursuing the scientific approach to creationism and evolution, but I am not a scientist and so I wish to pursue the political/social/historical/ph­ilosophical approach. You have been polite and courteous PFC33, but none of your arguments make sense. I respect your right to hold your own beliefs and I don't wish to offend you by continuing. Thus I ask; do you want to continue this conversation? If not, I understand

[PFC33]

Rubixx and I have pursued our debate over private messages due to the lack of space. I don't mind continuing if you don't, it's up to you, I can do this for as long as necessary :)

[gregrutz]

Why don't we find dinosaur fossils less then 65 million years old.

Why don't we find bunny fossils buried with the other flood fossils?

Why isn't there ANY evidence of a global flood?

[NoneBeforeNoneAfter]

Because they ARE NOT that OLD. Blood cells and hemoglobin do not last millions or billions of years. Yes I am talking about soft tissue found of the T REX. I dont care if you freeze it, Seal it in a tight container, bury it a mile deep in rock. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. And you WILL NOT find a good answer., So start looking. MY HELL there are christians that LIE to keep there jobs so its not surprizzing that Scientists will Lie to save face. Evol;ution is dying more and more every day. Its Religous.

[gregrutz]

So let me know when the stop teaching it at Harvard, Yale, UCLA, USC.

I want to go to evolution church, do you know of one? Where is it?

[TheStrangeRanger]

Kent Hovind is crazier than a shithouse rat.

[Daracon75]

He's crazy? Why? Because he makes atheists and evolutionists look like utter fools by using solid, undeniable facts? You don't like your beliefs being destroyed, do you...

[TheStrangeRanger]

>by using solid, undeniable facts?

ROFLOL. :"Solid, undeniable facts?" Are you kidding me? Undeniable facts like noahs ark? Didn't happen. Undeniable facts like the earth is 6000 years old? Sorry but that is nonsense. Undeniable facts like t-rex was a vegetarian? Sorry but hovind is full of shit. Were you homeschooled daracon? Or are you just dumber than hair?

[Daracon75]

No, the limiting factors. You must not have watched the video.... obviously. The earth's magnetic field strength decreasing.... the speed of the rotation of the earth is slowing down. The size of the world's largest dessert and it's size progression....And there were many many more.

They are solid, undeniable facts. Do you agree? Try and explain those away.

[TheStrangeRanger]

Phenomena of any kind is, or will be, explained by science. There is no god.

The earths magnetic field is always in flux. It's always changing. That is the normal state of things. The disintegration we are currently experiancing has a scientific explaination. Not a supernatural one. There are no supernatural events. ONly brainwashed automatons who believe in magic sky daddies.

[Daracon75]

"The earths magnetic field is always in flux"

And I say, prove it. The burden of proof is on you, to disprove the limiting factors. Everything else is irrelevant until you do.. including dinosaur questions.

[TheStrangeRanger]

LOL. Wow. You're crazier than a shit-house rat. To suggest that if I can't prove the earths magnetic field is in constant flux then dinosaurs lived with man and the noahs ark muth is true. Wow. You really live in a fantasy land. Are you 12?

[TheStrangeRanger]

If you can't prove charlie manson is jesus christ then god is a duck. The burden of proof is on you. Until you do, everything else is errelevant. Including magnetic field questions.

[TheStrangeRanger]

The magnetic field has been measured consistantly since 1835 using a magnetometer. Satellites use vector magnetometers. Geomagnetic Observatories have recorded these histories for a long time. The military uses magnetic anomaly detectors. They all show flux. The earths magnetic field changes constantly in direction and magnitude. Science has known this for decades. I'm not surprised you don't. Afterall you think he earth is less then 9000 years old. That's about as ingorant as you can be

[TheStrangeRanger]

Do you believe the earth is less than 8000 years old?

Do you believe t-rex was once a vegetarian?

Do you believe that there were velociraptors on noahs ark?

[Trzcinka77]

Ok. 1. Earth Magnetic Field is decreasing but what Hovind said that reversal is not proven is a lie, it has been proven by few independent reaserchers around the world by studying lava flow. 2. The speed of rotation of earth is changing but not constatly slowing down like he said its varying and the cause of that is moment of inertia and moon gravitational influence, in recent years earth is actually accelerating. 3. Sahara is changing over the years but not only expanding but shirnking aswell.

[theshredator]

This man is a liar and a fraud. That is why he's also in jail.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

What do you know about anything. What is Kent Hovind lying about. You just don't like it when your beliefs are threatened. You are the liar and the fraud.

[theshredator]

Lol, wrong.

Kent Hovind made lots of money traveling around doing seminars during which he claimed to have a teaching degree(lie), he claimed to have taught high school science(lie) for fifteen years(lie), and then he went on to preach bad science. It's hardly imaginable how much B.S. this guy can produce. He's a talker. He has the gift of gab and he uses it to make money by preaching anti-science education propaganda to Christians and potential Christians who are scientifically illiterate.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

The only bullshit that I am aware of is the bullshit coming from you my friend.

[theshredator]

Then you apparently haven't paid much attention to the man in the video above. All you have to do is search youtube for videos refuting Hovind. There are hundreds. I don't have the time to educate every ignorant person I encounter. If you want to be aware of the real bullshit, you'll be honest with yourself and research Hovind, his credentials, and how oblivious to science he is. I have a feeling, though, that you don't want to be aware of the bullshit that you have already swallowed, friend.

[Terrin123456789]

what do you mean does anyone take this seriously, are you actually that dumb, fuckin idiot

[tmg291]

this is freaking unbelievable - does anybody take this seriously???

[meshuggahdeciple327]

Lol yeah the people who gave you negative remarks

I dont believe this horse shit

[Terrin123456789]

im an evolutionist i suck balls jk seriously this is an argument that wont ever end so everyone SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!! god rules

[blackdice23]

He didn't stop me from pissing in a glass and throwing it out my window because I couldn't be arsed to go to the bog. I rule!

[nameUnavailab1e]

in many religions including norse, ancient greek, native american, Christian, etc. there is a worldwide flood. that's proof enough for me.

[airsoftmasterz]

this guys a genious

[meshuggahdeciple327]

No you  are just retarded

[thecommonsenseguy]

If anyone here is honestly interested in what science has to say about an old earth, i can tell snyone first hand why this planet is old and why there was no great flood, this is a take it or leave it opportunity. There is a reason 99% of scientists believe in an old earth, if you honestly are curious why, just send me a private message and ill give you information im sure you never considerred or even knew existed. I can tell you all you need to know and more, that is all.

[Dolirn]

There are many living things older than 4400 years. One Swedish tree is over 9000. Proof against Hovind's flood (not the Bible's).

[kerhascoet]

I'm scared by this.

[supersmash43]

Young Earth Creationists are the nuttest of the nuttest. If you thought creationists are nutty, then you'll be in for a surprise!

[supersmash43]

This guy is a nutcase and he isn't a scientist at all; more like a religious comedian or politican in all respects and he's starting to even ban videos here that contrict his craziness which use his own videos even though he says they are copyright free. So he's convicting people of using copyright free material? That's total hypocracy! Obviously he's doing this in order to silence opposition which is what mad men like him do!

[Wububub]

The drillings were taken from a 'dead' glacier. This kind of glacier accumulates thin layers of ice annually. The lost squadron landed on an active part of glacier near the coast, where the yearly rate of ice accumulation is between 3~10 feet.

[salvador36213]

your piont is

[Wububub]

My point is that the ice that was layered on the lost squadron was the kind of ice that accumulates much faster, thus enabling such an amount of ice to gather in such a 'short' period of time.

The glacier samples ,on the other hand, were from 'the heart' of the glacier and have taken several tens of thousands of years to accumulate.

[geodesicks]

wow. people as demented as this one shouldn't be legally allowed outside. well, maybe as circus performers.. but that's it.

[dragonfist25]

And what have YOU contributed to the world?

[geodesicks]

differential decay of top quark cross sections. how the hell does that matter anyway? this guy is plain demented, in my opinion.

and you're pretty stupid too for your non-sequiter question.

[dragonfist25]

"and you're pretty stupid too for your non-sequiter question."

Just answer my question homeboy.

[geodesicks]

i just did! precision measurements of differential decay of top quark cross sections and that's only my most recent scientific contribution. how does it even matter, though?

[soolkyut]

because trees arent invincible..... why dont we have billion year old trees? you have to be kidding me

[calamariaxo]

As for the trees through strata, this has been explained to many times for me to repeat it here. Look up polystrate fossils. And the tree-thing. We have living bacteria 250mill years old, we have plants 43600 years old (Lomatia tasmanica). Where does that fit in dear sir?

[dragonfist25]

And who do you know that the Lomatia Tasmanica is 43,600 years old?

[kDest]

"And who do you know that the Lomatia Tasmanica is 43,600 years old?"

Carbon dating. It can date things younger than 50000 years.

[calamariaxo]

The accumulation of ice where the planes were found is approx 57 inches a year, consistent with how deep they were found. On the other hand the greenland ice core project drills far inland, in specific sites, where the annual layers build-up is completely consistent with our theories. What was that he said. Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever. What are you?

[1badfokker]

So were it snows inland you get annual rings but everywhere else it is because of warm and cool changes? Got to say sounds to me like you will be suffering forever.