Dismantling "40 Kent Hovind Lies 1" (by shanedk)

[aden302000]

The first law of CONSERVATION OF MATTER says that matter cannot be created or destroyed during a chemical reaction (nothing to do with thermodynamics) BUT under the energy model of Einstein matter and energy are interchangeable and can be destroyed during fission/ fusion and can be created spontaneously from energy in a particle accelerator (as what happens at CERN). The first law of dynamics describes the interchange of heat in a closed thermal system and how this change can be measured.

[acolony22]

Okay half the time in this video you just said he was lying but showed no evidence to prove otherwise. Your just mad because he makes the evolutionary theory sound and look stupid. Just like everyone who believes in such propaganda.

[jesse8857]

@acolony22 What are you talking about? I can't remember what was "halfway through the video"!

[guineapiggyman]

haha, you can TELL hes lyin about getting the letter from the astronomer, because ANY astronomer would know that Sirius is a TRIPLE star system. one small white, one big orange, and one 'dark' star, thats extremely dense. this guy just loves to lie. no wonder hes refused questioning under polygraph

[timrice666]

. . . . In summary you know i can't take your opinions on science over the scientific community. Your conspiracy theory doesn't wash, especially as most christians disagree with you. This whole issue is a non event outside of fundamentalist protestantism in the usa and islam (when your opinions agree with that backward and oppressive ideology, it's time to worry). But i did think you would have rose to the defence of your holy book where your opinions would have had some merit.

[timrice666]

hi jesse. Once again you seem to think that you and hovind are more able at interpreting scientific data than professional scientists, you range over the whole spectrum of scientific endeavour and seem to feel justified in gainsaying experts in every field. Are you really that confident?

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 once again, there are many creationist scientists. Would you be interested in an amazing confession by a prominent molecular biologist? I can state it here

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Thanks for replying, i see you get alot of comments and didn't think you would have time. There are not "many" creation scientists. There are none in the elite science bodies (religious does not equal creationist and accepting evolution does not equal atheist) and the figures used by creationist websites are for science teachers who like dr (of theology) hovind do not have a science degree. You probably know that the "confession" will only impress me if it is peer reviewed, sorry.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 OK, I would have to refer you to a video called "Expelled". Part 1 is located at watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4 Gorge V. Caylor interview a prominent biologist whose name is withheld (for job-keeping reasons). Georde asked "Do you believe that the information evolved?" The biologist responded: "George, nobody in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by a 'genius beyond genius' and such information could not have been written any other way... [see comment 2]

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Sorry to sound like a broken record but because i am sceptical I am not interested in the opinions of any scientist or group of scientists who will not face peer review. I am not competent to judge their claims but, if they won't face people who are then they are like "great" boxers who never get in the ring and prove it. As for biologists are only in it for the research grants, sounds a bit like a conspiracy and it could equally apply to other sciences and religion,but we will see.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 ...To be a molecular biologist requires to hold on to 2 insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, big college lectures--everything would stop. I'D BE OUT OF A JOB, or regulated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living." [George V. Caylor, "The Biologist," The Ledger, Vol. 2 Issue 48 No 92, p. 2]

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Watched expelled, in it stein talks to michael shermer and i think he showed the rational scepticism that was missing in the film, I then googled "lies in expelled" and watched youtube's "watch expelled with subtitles correcting the lies". The film had an obvious agenda and it didn't offer any evidence to support that. "only a theory" by ken miller (a christian) explains evolution and why some religious people won't accept it i'd send it if i could but if not i'll just recommend it.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Yeah I've seen expelled, I can't quite get what your saying here either...

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 continued . . That is what the bible is like when I read it with no prior belief that it is the word of god, and i suspect it would be how people of other faiths read it and how you would read their books. But think about it, they would leap to the defence of their holy books and tell you what it "really" means and how i don't understand just like you are doing, doesn't that tell you something?

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 You would probably see that I'm doing that, but I don't since I know what the Bible means. Anyhow, other holy books are proven wrong since they are non-scientific. There are no contradictions in the bible, and I'm currently making a video about all the scientific findings in the Bible... Anyhow, your belief - evolution. What would you say is the greatest evidence for it [other than "all scientists believe in it"]

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 I thought we agreed evolution is a fact? The best explanation of that fact is the current theory of evolution. I believe that evolution is a fact because it has been seen to happen in real time plus historical evidence and no dissent (unless you want to be the first!). I accept the current theory because it is coherent, it's confirmed by experiment and observation, it fits with other scientific disciplines and yes because experts agree on it.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Well, I believe changes do happen, but they are limited. So you could consider me a creationist...

I would suggest you look at my channel description for the 6 definitions of evolution. what you see as "evolution in action" is really micro-evolution. creationists entirely agree with this!

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Sorry it's back to the experts again and they say micro evolution is just macro evolution over a smaller time scale, what about ring species? evolutionary theory explains them, creationism doesn't.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 but that is what micro evolution is not! micro is a rearrangement of information, while macro is the insertation of entirely new information. There is no way to get new information to come about (other than retroviruses which are totally incapable of producing change) which means evolution does not work at the moment. what are ring species?

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 you know what i'm going to say! That is not the scientific consensus!, There is no mechanism to stop micro becoming macro and you can get new information added, eg by mutation of a frame shift duplication in flavobacterium producing nylonase. Search youtube for "ring species the abridged version" by potholer54. If you read the bible literally jesus is the son of god, he and the father are one Jon10 30-36 jesus even predicts his resurection mat20 17-19, What did he sacrifice?

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Since its very late right now, Ill have to give you some quotes from evolutionists tomorrow about macro-micro... Jesus had the chance to go to hell - if He sinned which He didn't

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 If you could address ring species, lenski's experiments and nylonase that would be interesting and I'm still not clear on what jesus sacrificed or if you think he was actually the son of god or just a good person.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 yeah I'll have to find out about the ring species, I gave you the article addressing Lenski's claims didn't I? The nylonase is basically the same as the antibiotic resistance by bacteria... I suggest you type any of these subjects into the search box at creation [dot] com and a whole bunch of articles should come up. Jesus sacrificed his place in heaven for perhaps a place in hell. the thing is, he didn't go to hell because he was perfect. And he is God's son, as a man on earth

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Sorry jesse but the "whole bunch of articles" are just opinion until they pass peer review, for example the article on flavobacterium only references peer reviewed journals for the facts, it then goes on to give it's opinion on what those facts mean, the peer reviewed scientific consensus disagrees and i would suggest a site called creation.com might have a bias! As for jesus . . ..

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 the guys at creation cite the scientists for the facts...so they become believable to you...

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Facts are always believable, what i was pointing out is their conclusions about those facts are merely opinions until they submit them for peer review.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 . . . . Wasn't jesus also god and god jesus, that's not a human being. The jesus story seems to be god coming down for 33 years (approx) and then going back up to heaven, possibly suffering in the wilderness with satan and again on the cross, but nowhere near as much as humans do and more likely not at all because being a manifestation of god he would have been omniscient and omnipotent. His sacrifice was to "die" physically and go back to heaven, sorry but that is silly to me.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 also, perhaps you would like to tell me why you reject God [?].. Is it a matter that you think there doesn't need to be one, or is there a fundamental flaw in the Bible? Just wanting to hear your opinion...

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 I've answered this but I can imagine you have a few debates going on simultaneously so it's hard for you to keep track. I don't reject god but I see no evidence for it. It is religion I reject, they all make similar unsubstantiated claims, and what (little) good they do can be achieved without them. The bible is just silly if read literally i am not competent to judge sophisticated readings but as there are so many i'll have to wait for some objective standard before accepting any.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 So why is the bible silly if read literally? And don't google bible contradictions--all are answered. In fact, I have the entire archive of all contradictions answered.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 I don't mean contradictory or even unscientific,i mean silly(not all of it, there is some good prose in the kjv and some wisdom even).1/ "the fall" (if that's not a metaphor for the responsibilities that come with knowledge then yahweh is a monster.2/the flood if true would mean yahweh is a monster.3/ sodom and gomorrah = monster 4/tower of babel - that didn't happen (might come under unscientific, sorry) 5/ abraham-isaac =monster 6/ cut your foreskin off for god = silly monster etc

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 the fall is a result of MAN'S disobedience - nothing to do with God. The flood is a result of man's wickedness. God HAD to destroy man [which judge in their right mind would allow a proven murderer to walk free?] since He is truth. Same story with Sodom and Gomorrah, and tower of Babel. If you read the Bible, you'll see that Abraham didn't kill Isaac at all - it's just a test of faith. Cutting off the foreskin is to stop diseases entering [I won't go in depth with this],

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Shall we settle on "silly to me"? When i read those stories i read that god punished all of adam and eve's descendants for a crime he should have known was coming (omniscient?) He would also have known the flood was inevitable and could have stopped that suffering by killing adam and eve and starting again then. Why a flood that killed innocent babies and animals (were they guilty?) when god shows (in sodom) that he can destroy cities or even individuals? continued . . .

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 God is merciful - He would at least let the person live than destroy Adam and Eve. Otherwise, the spirits (of those wicked people at the time of the flood) would be damned in hell when they didn't even get to live on the earth at all!

If there were babies, they would have gone to heaven since they didn't know any better. The people "were increasingly wicked". So God sent a flood to destroy them just as the judge sentenced Husein to death by hanging.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 I see no mercy in sparing adam and eve to kill all the people later (why not start again but do it right?) You seem to think death is ok if you are guaranteed heaven like those babies, what about jesus? I thought the whole point was he suffered and died for our sins. but he didn't die, he is the one person who didn't have to fear death and is definitely in heaven and knew it. 40 days in the wilderness and walking on water show he wasn't human, did he even suffer? what sacrifice?

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Adam had a chance to repent and make sacrifices for atone for his sins (he probably went to heaven from what we know). At the time of the flood, people were so bad that God had to destroy them.

Yes, any historian can verify that Jesus really did live and really did suffer. He walked on water with the help of God in Heaven (God the Father, if you know what that means...)

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Historians cannot verify if he suffered, and i don't dispute his existence. Christians tell me that jesus suffered and died on the cross for my sins, but when i read the bible it says he didn't die, and it says jesus was much more than human so i can't be sure he suffered. He certainly didn't suffer like thomas cranmer or giordano bruno or countless other humans who didn't have the comfort of a guaranteed place in heaven. Like i said the bible (read literally) seems silly.

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 The Bible does say He died - but rose from the dead. Jesus was just as human as us, but with the help of God in heaven for the miracles Jesus didn't have a garanteed place in heaven!

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 by the way, how is the Tower of Babel unscientific? Is the tower itself unscientific? Or that God mixed up the languages?

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 continued . .If god knows our thoughts (omniscience) why would he need to test abraham? If foreskins are bad why did god give us them? Those were just the first few, I could go on through the bible until the most ridiculous of all to me, the jesus story! The tower might be unscientific if read literally as it was supposed to reach heaven (gen 11 1-9 KJV) implying either that we reach heaven every plane journey or the tower was higher than phisically possible. continued . . .

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 foreskins are bad NOW because there is disease in the world [this wouldn't be so in the original creation]. I would suppose God tests Abraham to show to us that he is worthy of being the father of God's chosen people. Every building reaches into heaven today. Heaven is simply the word for sky, as we can see by reading genesis.

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 Foreskins are not bad now (ever heard of washing) we don't pull our fingernails out because dirt gets under them, it is an ancient egyptian practise the israelites copied. Again why would on omniscient god have to test anyone (especially in such a barbaric manner)? If heaven is just the sky how could the sun and moon be lights in it and windows open in the firmament to let in rain etc (i did say a literal reading)

[jesse8857]

@timrice666 Sorry, my mistake. foreskins are not BAD but they are unhelpful since they help disease. It would be better to cut it off. But with fingernails, we can reach the dirt with our other fingernails, and seldom does this cause disease.

There are 3 different heavens - it is quite clear from the Bible....

[timrice666]

@jesse8857 The foreskin retracts which makes keeping it clean is a breeze, circumcision is very rare in western society outside of the US and europeans are not all ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases. I did a search online and secular, uncircumcised europe has slightly lower rates of STIs than US. (see youtuber "C0nc0rdance" video "circumcision" for a balanced discussion of the pros and cons)

[purdyr]

creation vs evolution . freeforums. org