To whom it may concern: you're about to see dumbo Shermer get his behind tanned. You dumbo evos better get out a pen, a pad, and a bowl of popcorn; y'all are about to get spanked.
It is absolutely amazing that people actually believe the stuff that this Hovind character believes.... It's scary... Please people, please just be objective and open to the actual facts and evidence... If you want to have faith and belief in god, then by all means, do so... But don't let that belief force you into the ignorant darkness that Hovind wishes for humanity.
@hookemdevildog be more specific plz. what he said that was not correct? did he directly lie? he said I BELIEVE all the time, plz name examples where he said something with sure and it was a pure lie. go ahead. no more blurry words just stick to the point if u can
Before I listen to anything that comes out of hovinds mouth, I would like to hear why he wont give a known-age sample to scientists to use radiometric dating. HHMmmmmmm maybe its because he know it works. haha
@Johnf85 lmao he alreaty talked about that " when they ont know the exact age its assumed to work, but when they know the exact age they say that in this particular case it didnt worked..." how can a living snail carbondate 2300 years? or freshly killed seal date 1300 years?10 out of 11 carbon date examples are rejected. its like 95 % error (roughly) which means it cant be caled a science. its like breaking 10 heads over a brick wall and when 11th one breaks it saying that head can break a wall
I wish Hovind wasn't so arrogant and stop doing all these scripted jokes every damn time he speaks. Even now when his son has taken over the seminars, he also uses the same damn script and the same jokes! It feels so effortless and dead.
@tkubok I have rambled on long enough. I confess that much of my rebuttal turned into theological which I said would be pointless. I'm hoping that I was wrong on that point. :)
@tkubok All I'm trying to say is you were created for a purpose which I know you reject. There is a value attached to you by "Him". God has chosen to give you this message in various ways one of which happens to be me. "Why?", I don't know and that's ok. tkubok my prayer is that "your eyes will be opened so that you will see the colors of this world. " :)
@tkubok You may also ask "If God exists why doesn't he do such and such in this way or that?." I will tell you just what Michael Shermer states in this video. "I don't know and that's ok". It doesn't disprove God it only means God's ways are not our ways. I believe that someday we will know all the answers but that is left to a more complete theological discussion.
You have it kind of backwards there. It doesnt disprove God, but it also doesnt support Gods existence, either. As i said before, i do not deny the possibility of God, but i am unconvinced because of Lack of evidence. And thats where the burden of proof lies, on the person making the claim.
Let me ask you this question. Do you believe that God has revealed himself physically, in instances like Thomas or Paul/saul?
@tkubok Is my belief based purely on blind faith? Those who don't believe will say yes because they can't see God within this orderly universe. They don't see God when a newborn baby comes into this world or when they see the sun rise and set. You ask "If God exists why doesn't He just show Himself." My answer to this is with another question, "If God showed Himself would you really believe Him?" My answer to the second question is no.
When you see a stillborn child, or a child with a terrible birth defect, do you still see God in them? Do you see God in an orphaned, starving child whose parents have died from a natural disaster? I would guess not, and neither do I. But the difference between you and me, is that I also dont see God in the Good, either. You are picking and choosing, attributing the Good with God and not the Bad. This is why this specific argument alone, fails. Its cherry picking.
@tkubok Stating that evil exists is correct, but you can't conclude God doesn't exist from this; you cannot define evil apart from the absolute standard that the Designer instituted. Simply put, define evil, and then once you have a workable definition, let it be known why it bothers you. Admitting that it does bother you (which it ought) implies that things ought to be different. Who gets to decide what it should be changed to, and what authority does this person have to do so?
Yes, you can, if the specific characteristic of God you are using, is both omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. I would define evil as Harmful, causing bad, or morally wrong.
We have something called the english language, and it has already dictated what the definition of Evil, is.
Yes, you can, if the specific characteristic of God you are using, is both omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. I would define evil as Harmful, causing bad, or morally wrong.
We have something called the english language, and it has already dictated what the definition of Evil, is.
@tkubok After my last statement you will write me off as completely delusional and that is why I try to adhere to reason and logic and try to bring the conversation back to the beginning of the universe and existence. The great question "WHY?" You seem to be saying we're here because we're here lets just make the best of it. I am saying we are here because of God, let God make the best of us.
No, i have not written you off as completely delusional. I understand where youre coming from, but you are committing a mistake that most theists make.
First off, let me just say, "We are here because we are here" is a tautology. It is true whether God exists or not. If God created us, then we are still here because we are here, much like a rock would still be a rock.
A theological debate is pointless when one side completely rejects any possibility of a God. On my side of the argument I compare it to trying to explain color to a person that is blind from birth. Unless they're eyes are opened they will never really fully comprehend and maybe even doubt that what you describe is really true. Ultimately what I am claiming is that my eyes have been open. Do I think I'm better than someone who is still blind? Absolutely not.
First off, i do not reject the possibility of God. The problem i have, is that no one has provided sufficient evidence that a God exists to me. All they have is hear-say personal experiences which are useless to me, because I have not experienced them.
Secondly, You can demonstrate that colors exist to a blind person, in multiple ways. Its why we have so many blind people who believe that Colors, photographs, exist. This is untrue with Gods existence.
@tkubok As far as my statement, "The event that was done on purpose" , I am claiming that God has purposefully created all of this and has purposefully given each of us a free will within all of this. That is my whole point in regards to the analogies of chance. I don't believe life is a poker game or that it's like a car without a steering wheel. We are because God said. It is as simple as that. I see all around me law and order. How can there be law without a lawgiver?
I apologize for my late reply, the christmas holidays were busy for me.
In regards to Gods purpose, do you believe that God has created earth and the events leading up to your life, or did he simply create earth at the beginning and sat back doing nothing?
Also, if you are talking about the laws and order of nature, then the "Law without a lawgiver" argument doesnt work. The laws of nature are descriptive whereas the laws that we know, have lawmakers, are proscriptive. You are extending what we see in society, and concluding the same must occur in nature. The problem with this is painfully obvious when one looks at man-made lakes, and conclude that all lakes must be made by man.
@tkubok First of all on the topic of moral objectivism vs moral relativism and what I believe. This might not be the best forum for beginning a debate on that. I think we both know which side each of us would be on in that argument. I know the arguments of both sides and I'm pretty sure you do as well. The fundamental answer of why and where we come from determines how we begin our logical equation in forming our opinion on that. We may want to find a different forum to carry on that discussion.
@tkubok Hope u didn't give up on me . I finally had a chance to read your response. I will respond somewhat in reverse order of the questions you asked and the points you are "trying" :) to make. First of all I enjoy this civil discussion where no name calling is involved. I respect your opinion and you are respecting mine. I appreciate that.
@tkbok I have rebuttals in regards to your analogies of historical evidence as well but this topic of purpose is very foundational and I hate to veer to far from it if you don't mind. I'm running long as well so I'll wait for your response.
By "The event that was done on purpose", are you claiming that God has purposefully led your life up to this point?
Also, as for the historical evidence stuff, it doesnt really matter if we look at moses, or the SS from Nazi Germany. I do not believe, for a second, that the hitler youth knew they were doing evil, but decided to do it anyways. Just like i do not believe that Suicide bombers are knowingly doing evil but disregard it.
@tkbok My sense of purpose is derived from outside of the event that was done on purpose. What happens around me makes no difference. Even if I'm put into solitary confinement for the rest of my life I still have purpose and a reason for living.
@tkbok Once you lost your steering wheel where she's goes nobody knows. Your sense of purpose is derived from within the mechanism of shear luck, chance accident whatever you want to call it. Sure I'll give you credit that laws of physics dictates this or that after the fact but why did it start. You apply purpose to something that came into existence for the same reason that you came into existence which really was for no reason at all.
I cannot see the difference between what you are describing, and, for example, winning the lottery and becoming convinced that the Lotto commission had rigged the game in order for you to win. Youre believing that a God has rigged the events of the history of the universe, of mankind, up to this point. Wouldnt you agree that it would be absurd to believe that the Lottery Commission had rigged the game in order for you to win?
"You apply purpose to something that came into existence for the same reason that you came into existence which really was for no reason at all"-You
Again, i would disagree. Going back to the poker analogy, Whether the deck was rigged for you to get a royal flush, or whether it was pure blind chance that you got a royal flush on your first try, doesnt change the fact that you got a Royal flush. It wouldnt change the value or meaning that you have placed in the card.
I am, in a way, living proof of this. I reject the claim that we were created with an inherent meaning and purpose, yet i myself have succeeded in placing meaning and value onto things in my life. If we found out, somehow, that God does not exist, it would not change my life in regards to what i value and place meaning on.
If you told your poker story in that way you would be laughed at. Sure I'll give you credit for being able to count up to five and grab five cards but beyond that you really had no control. Another possible analogy may be a car wreck. You tell the story of how your steering wheel came off and lost control. You then begin to explain it in a laughable way. "then on purpose I ran into the ditch over the the fence and then over the cliff."
@tkbok Here's where I want to form some sort of logic in regards to purpose. Your argument for purpose begins after a non-purposeful event.Other terms used could be accident or chance.My argument for purpose begins before the beginning of this existence as we know it and it was done on purpose.This is where your poker analogy falls short. If you were telling a story about your poker game and said "and then I drew 5 cards and on purpose I made a full house and beat the other guys pair of two's".
Im sorry I caused you a sleepless night. Hope you slept well last night.
I couldnt agree with you more. I had no control beyond simply grabbing five cards and counting up to five. This, i believe, is the very definition of random chance.
But, lets flip this around somewhat. Lets say you and I were in a poker game with two more of your friends, and that this was your first game, ever. I hand you five cards, and you just happen to get a royal flush.
Now, at that point, you may start to believe that, since this was your first time playing poker, we had stacked the deck so that you would get the royal flush on your first try, as a joke.
This outlines the problem with your argument. If you place value and meaning on the outcome, it can also lead you to believe that the entirety of it was purposefully stacked in order to produce that outcome, even if it was done by pure chance.
Now I think we both agree that existence as we know it had some sort of beginning. How it came to be is where we quickly part ways. I hope I'm right on that assumption of your belief. Going back any further I'm not sure where you stand. Was there something that came from nothing or was there something that always was and just happened to explode into some sort of order through laws of physics that always have existed. Regardless I think we can also agree that we could debate that for eternity.
@tkbok My dear tkubok thanks to you I had somewhat of a sleepless night. So I will begin my rebuttal with a sleepy brain and see if I can recall my arguments that were formed on the fringes of my dreams while I was in my bed. I want to bring us back to our discussion of purpose. To bring us back to logic on this topic we need to go back to the very foundation of existence. The difference between where you begin your argument and where I begin are very different.
@tkubok lol no apologies needed. I appreciate your responses. I actually hadn't completed my complete train of thought but was cut short due to a birthday party. My response would have been longer. I've read your responses and will respond tomorrow. I'm wiped out tonight.
@tkubok Evolutionarily speaking the creature that risks his life to save another will become extinct very quickly. Whatever dna make up that causes that creature to do right and yet sacrifice it's existence cannot possibly survive long. On the flip side that dna make of the creature that never risks its existence will flourish.
Actually, not so. Vervet Monkeys, will actually call out, alerting his fellow monkeys of predators, even though making noise alerts the predator to his location. There is a benefit to saving the entire society at the cost of a few. There is a benefit to sacrifice one to save many. And yes, Vervet monkeys still exist today, despite thier actions. Perhaps, because of it.
Now, thinking from the opposite end of the court, what if there existed an afterlife? What meaning, what purpose would life have, then?
First, lets ignore Hell and Heaven for a second. An eternal afterlife, is sort of like having an infinite amount of US dollars. Sure, it sounds good, but practically speaking, it would be devastating. If you kept spending that money, the US dollar would become worthless.
Cont... Its the same reason why the US cannot simply print more $100 bills to get out of debt, doing so would cause massive inflation. In reality, the reason why the US Dollar is worth anything is because of its limit. The fact that something is limited, increases its worth. The fact that life ends, that this is it, increases this lifes worth as well. Whats the point of our 60-70 years if theres an unlimited afterlife beyond that?
@tkubok But yet deep down you know this would be completely wrong. Out of macro evolution how could there evolve a creature that knows a right and a wrong way to live and have a very real choice to do either one. For example, you see a man drowning. You have a choice to make. You could jump in to save him but risk your life or you could just wave good bye to him and risk nothing. Deep down you know the right thing to do but you still have a choice.
Our knowledge of right and wrong, is easily explained by evolution. It has to do with survival, the most basic of instincts. We have recognized, that a society has a higher chance of survival, than independent individuals. This isnt just in Humans, other animals exhibit this trait, too. Wolves actually form packs, and exile any wolf that strays or does something to harm that pack. How do wolves know how to exist in society, just like humans?
As for drowning, this is easily explained through evolution as well. People tend to act nicely to you, if you act nicely to them. If you go around, being a jerk all the time, people are less likely to help you in times of need. If i go and save someone from drowning, i may not be expecting an immediate return, but what i am doing, is creating a societal norm where we all benefit from each other by helping each other. Its the only possible way a society can survive.
Furthermore, our knowledge of right and wrong, is so simple, so extremely simple, that they are nearly identical to the moral compass of animals. All you need to do is read the bible to understand this. Moses orders the slaughter of children, but lets the virgin women alive so that they can be raped by his men. Would this be acceptable in modern society, if our troops in Iraq were raping Iraqi women, and slaughtering children? of course not. Yet Moses thought it was.
You live and you die and your done. If this is the case why even waste your time in a silly debate. Does it really matter? If I were you I wouldn't waste anymore time. Live life as if you were the only thing that counts. If it it feels and tastes good you better do it and keep on doing it cause once you're gone you're gone.
I do live my life to the fullest. I debate, i discuss, not only because i enjoy interacting with people, but also because i happen to care about my society, and other people. I understand that i am not alone, i cannot live alone, and i need society in order to live comfortably. I need someone to fix my car. I need someone to operate the Bus. This is why society is important to me, and why i care about others.
@tkubok As to your sense of purpose and to the law of human nature ie morals, I'm just trying to follow the logical course that macro evolution would take. If there was this Big Bang out of shear chance everything that follows, at least in my line of reasoning, would be of complete chance. This would include you, your family and society. If this is the case then how can there be a purpose or meaning or even absolutes. Out of these billions of years here comes you all 70 to 90 years worth of you.
Firstly, i do not believe in absolutes. Wouldnt you agree, that we should be humble and accept the possibility that we may be wrong? If so, then neither do you.
Secondly, its a common misconception that the big bang, or everything after that, is based on shear chance. The truth is, everything that followed after the big bang was governed by the laws of physics, which isnt based on chance at all.
Thirdly, think of it as a game of poker. The cards you get are completely random, yet we as human beings have placed meaning and value in specific combinations of cards. Nothing prevents us from placing meaning and value on things, despite its origins.
@tkubok I didn't mean to infer that you believed that the universe always existed I was just pointing out that at some point science cannot completely decipher. You may claim that you are basing your "belief" on the best scientific evidence but you do not "know" for certain nor do I, at least from a naturalistic standpoint. In my life I have experienced the presence and power of God but I don't really expect you to believe me at face value. I could be completely delusional and easily dismissed.
What do you mean by "Do not "know" for certain"? If you are talking about not knowing for certain, simply because it happened before our time, and we cannot observe it, then i agree, we cannot know for certain. But that would apply to World War 1, as well. All we have about our past, is the evidence. Neither of us lived through World War 1, or the Napoleonic wars, but we believe they occured because of the evidence.
51:28 He doesn't know that the hyena on his slide isn't a canid, but a feliforme.
51:50 He doesn't know that their crossbreeds are infertile because of mutations to gamete receptors and that this is why you can't mate a dog with the far further removed banana.
52:05 He doesn't know what increases in diversity have already been observed even in just his own examples of dog and cow and corn varieties from wolves, aurochs, and maize.
He DOESN'T know ANYTHING, so GOD DID IT, so he KNOWS EVERYTHING.
49:46 He doesn't know that cockroaches resist sledgehammers primarily by hiding in walls and breeding rapidly, or what might stop them from actually just evolving tough enough shells to take the blow.
47:53 He doesn't know what's on the next page of that textbook.
48:17 He doesn't know that heterozygous anemia carriers resist malaria without suffering anemia, or that inconvenience by anemia is less dangerous than death by malaria.
48:30 He doesn't know of Limone Sul Garda HDL tolerance, Tibetan Glycophorin A, CCR5-delta 32, female tetrachromia, anti-myostatin, or LRP5 enhancement, and all those just in humans and just in recent history.
43:45 He doesn't know that Kent is an Old English name meaning "edge" (as in he's gone completely over the) and that the Welsh name meaning bright is Kenn, not Kent, and that bright, shining, and white in Welsh are variations of llachar, disgleirio, and gwyn.
43:57 He doesn't know why his citation of the law and the content of the textbook being upheld in court is evidence against his position.
44:11 He doesn't know how rapidly evolutionary theory is advancing.
Results: "My name's Kent Hovind, I taught high school science 15 years-" YEP, THAT'S THE SCRIPT. Regardless of what previous presenters have said, how many people he's playing to, or what his audience is, that is the same single sermon he gives every time. "This is not my wife, it's just a picture of her." Same bad jokes. "I'm against lies."
Background: Kent Hovind is a convicted fraudster who recites his lines from a memorized script, which he repeats every time the same way.
Hypothesis: When Hovind's turn comes, he will talk about how long he's taught high school biology, and then fail at vocabulary which high school students would be expected to learn from him.
...Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology,"Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) (Nobel Prize winner)
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation,that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by LouisPasteur and others.That leaves us with the only possible conclusionthat life arose asa supernatural creativeact of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not wantto believe inGod...
The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological....
....Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.
Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material....
Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view.(Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology,"Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958)
This is what is actually said on page 100, scientific american, vol 199, september 1958 edition. The quote you have brought up is actually a summarization that is both out of context and false.
I dont need to have faith to be an evolutionist, there is plenty of evidence.
If all the evidence you can bring, is a quotemine, out of context, and fake, to support your belief against evolution, then you clearly dont have enough faith to be against evolution either.
There is no simple "One peice" of evolution, anymore than dropping a ball on earth proves that there is gravity on mars.
The MANY evidences for evolution, include the many fossil lineages that we have that show the transition of species, the Genetic evidence that "Coincidentally" coincides with similar morphology, as well as the observed instances of speciation.
Oh, and also, Micro evolution is evolution. The word is in there!
Everything, from the fossil lineage of Humans and ape-like ancestors, to the fossil lineage of Horses, to the fossil lineage of Birds. But, as i said before, there is no "One" peice of evidence for evolution, the Theory of evolution is built up on many feilds, and many peices of evidence.
Again, there is no single example of a fossil that support macroevolution. Everything from Neanderthals, Homo erectus to Austrolopithicus afarensis, Africanus, produces a lineage of ape-like ancestors to humans.
@tkubok Lets talk about Homo erectus (Java and Peking man). Shortly after Darwin published his Origin of the Species, a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois, went in search of Pithecanthropus in Sumatra. Dubois had been a student of Ernst Haeckel, famous for his "biogenetic Law" that stated a human embryo went through a sequential evolutionary stage of its ancestors. It is now well known through medical science that this is far from true. What else is well known is that Haeckel falsifiedmost...
@tkubok ...of his data. As Dubois came under increasing attack, he became very secretive about his fossil finds - to the point of hiding them under his dining room floor and refusing to let them be examined. A few years before his death in 1940, Dubois finally admitted the skulls were in his opinion those of a large Gibbon. Evolutionists however refused to accept this and to this day it is still being taught as a transitional, though all modern scientists have debunked it.
First off, what Dubois actually said, was "Gigantic Genus allied to the Gibbon".
Secondly, what you, or most likely the website you got this from, failed to mention, is that Dubois followed up on the claim with the words "very much too large for an anthropoid ape", and never stopped believing that he found a skeleton ancestor to man.
So, based on those two facts, what exactly do Evolutionists have to refuse to accept?
@tkubok You are not alone in leaving God to the last place to look for answers. What if you looked and found a God that wanted to change you from the inside out. A God that not only asked but also did it for you. That is the God I have found. No I can't put Him in a test tube, it is by faith. Please don't take my comments as an attack on you.I really do want to know where you are coming from. It is like we come from two different worlds.
This is what i never understood about this argument. Maybe you can clear things up. Why doesnt God simply reveal himself to everyone? Why does he force us to rely on faith? I dont know if youre a christian, or if you simply believe that God exists, but either way, it makes no sense as to why he would deliberately hide himself life this.
@tkubok I guess my question to you would be where do you derive your purpose if you are nothing more than a chain reaction over billions of years? Why would it matter if I do right for that same reason? Why would it matter if I do wrong to a fellow human? If I rape a woman couldn't I excuse it by claiming I'm just fulfilling an urge that has evolved over billions of years? So what if other humans think it is wrong and lock me up I have no reason to be sorry for my action. They are wrong.
As for where i derive my purpose, my purpose comes from my family, friends, and the society i live in. This is what i never understood about this question of "Where else could you derive purpose and meaning from, except from a God?" Do you seriously believe that your family, friends means nothing to you?
As for why it would matter if you do the right thing, thanks to living in this society, both you and I have been brought up, being taught that these are wrong, and have created a moral compass accordingly. It all has to do with society. I truly doubt, unless you are a sociopath, that you could rape and murder without feeling a tinge of guilt.
However, if you were raised in saudi arabia, and you were taught that killing a woman on the street if she did not have her hair and face covered was a social necessity, and you were dumped in the middle of the US and killed a woman for this reason, you probably would think that you have no reason to be sorry, and that they are wrong.
I guess my main point in my last comment is that at some point in a discussion of where we have come from there's a breaking point where science no longer can decipher. We jump into faith. You can believe that the universe has always existed and I can believe that God has always existed. Both require a faith.I guess that is why I begin to look into the subject of right and wrong, good and evil, to try to bring some kind of logic into the equation.
Actually, just to clear things up, i dont believe that the universe has always existed. I just wanted to point out, that it is one possibility that exists.
As for faith, the only problem i have with it, is that its a poor way of determining whether your beliefs are true, or whether they are false. I prefer my beliefs to be true, which is why i only base my beliefs on evidence, and reasoned arguments.
@tkubok No need to apologize in your delayed response. I'm sure we both have a life outside of responding to a blog. I rarely enter into discussions such as this via the internet but I find this discussion to be very intriguing even though its a debate that is ancient as time. Trying to understand how someone else thinks is a very good way to challenge myself in my understandings and beliefs. Once again I really appreciate your responses.
@tkubok If we try to argue that there is no such thing as good or bad or right or wrong we have already lost the argument since we are arguing that we are right. I know I have wandered a long way from the topic of macro evolution. Macro evolution when used to argue away the existence of a God leads us to all these other topics.
@tkubok Nothing matters including science. What gives you the desire to study science? What gives us humans the desire to study, research and improve our existence? We can narrow the conversation even further to the study of good and bad. Who told us that when our heart beats and blood flows through our veins and our lungs expand and contract that that is a good thing, What if I tried to make the argument that we got it all wrong? It's better when all those functions are stopped.
@tkubok If we assume that there is something that has always been we quickly find ourselves at a dead end of which science and faith collide. I tend to study things in science to give me a reason for why I personally am alive. Why am I here? Why do I matter? Why does it matter that my wife is here or you are here? Why do any of my relationships with anybody or anything matter? If I don't matter or have a reason than life and science itself falls into one heap of rubble. Nothing matters.
But God is the last place i would ever look for any answer. Following God, is no different than following a Dictator. And the existance of hell, is no different than having a Gun pointed to your head.
I prefer my beliefs to be as true as possible. And the current, best method of figuring whether my beliefs are True, is through critically thinking, analysis, reasoning, and logic, i.e. Science.
@tkubok I really appreciate your response tkubok. You have given me some things to study and think about. I do admit that how I view the world comes from my view of God and my relationship with Him. Obviously when you insert God into the reason why we exist He would be the One that also created all laws of which we strive to learn and decipher. He himself would stand outside the element of time, space etc. It seems to me there has to be something that has always been.
Ive just finished reading your comments, and i apologize for the late reply.
The problem that i see in your comments, is that none of what you said, requires a God or diety. You dont need a God to have purpose in your life, or to know wrong from right. You dont even need a God to believe in something that has always existed(i.e. the universe could have always been). The questions youve asked, are important, theyre important to me as well.
I almost forgot. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. What are you thankful for today? I'm thankful that I have evolved into something that experiences happiness because happiness sure feels good. If you see someone unhappy today please help them out and make them happy. :)
If the odds are that good I think I can win the jackpot in my favorite casino everyday for the next 100 years. I'm a simple man with simple thoughts but I make no apologies for it. God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and I will be the first to admit that I fall into that "chosen" category. Maybe the "wise" have not been been shamed just yet by us "fools" but there is a day that is coming. But that's not science is it?
Moving from the court room, "Burden of Proof", to the casino, what are the odds that what we call humans evolved from dirt to the point where we can debate over the internet, which the highly evolved dirt created? Not only that but after I type these words and push the post button I will create a chemical reaction inside many evolved pieces of dirt throughout the world, at least the pieces of evolved dirt that read English, and cause a chain reaction of both positive and negative.
You have 2 lottery tickets. One, is a winning lottery number, with the ticket number as 123456. The other, is a losing lottery number, with the ticket number 654321.
Now, what are the odds of getting the 123456 lottery ticket? Around 1 in 13 million.
What are the odds of getting the 654321 lottery ticket? The same, 1 in 13 million.
This is a field of physics known as Statistical thermodynamics, which states that ANY system is infinitely improbable. If we go by your logic, then a glass of water could not exist, because the probability of each water molecule, being in its exact location at any one time, is infinitely improbable. Yet, we know this is false, because the glass of water exists. The mistake you are making, is looking at our current state of existance AS A GOAL, when we know this to be FALSE.
"Fear none of those things which you shall suffer. Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried, and you shall have tribulation TEN DAYS: be you faithful to death, and I will give you a crown of life." Revelation 2:11
As you may (or may not) know, biblicaly speaking, a prophetic DAY is a literal YEAR.
I'm really glad Kent Hovind is in jail so he can't spread any more stupidity.
Just because he doesn't understand it due to his limited intellect does not mean it's not true. That's just like saying a foreign language does not make any sense to anyone because I don't understand the words.
One should learn and try to understand the basic concepts before forming an opinion.
@photographer85 The very reason that Hovind is in jail is because he is very dangerous to the lies, and the liars. Most atheists desperately HOPE that there is no God, and that evolution is true, so that they don't have any need to change their lives, and so that they can get away scot free with every evil that they ever committed. That's exactly why there is so much anger, animosity, and hatred harbored by you, and people like you.
@DelusionTerminator He is in jail because he is a fraudster and a lair, stealing other peoples money with false promises and not paying taxes. Have you listened to the phone calls he made to his son and his wife, trying to remove further incriminating evidence and more?
Of course it's easy to play the victim when you'e a criminal, just tell everyone that there's some vast conspiracy out there (some nuts will always fall for that one) and when you end up in jail it's not bc of your crimes.
I hope that God doesnt exist, so that i can keep on killing random people and raping women.
Oh wait, i dont do any of that. I dont steal, i dont drink excessively, i never kill or rape. So what "Evil" exactly, am i trying to get away with?
Also, is that the same as how Christians hope that there is no ALLAH, and that Islam is false and christianity is true, so that they dont have to change their lives?
Funny how your argument works when the tables are turned.
@DelusionTerminator Funny how your username is ''DelusionTerminator'' when you are one delusioned nutcase. '' Most atheists desperately HOPE that there is no God, and that evolution is true'' Evolution is not about wether or not there's a God, it's about the diversity of life. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't even have the slightest idea! Obviously science is too complex for you so you have to resort to bronze age religions and that's just sad.
@Reasonwillwin Hello, if macroevolution occurs in biological systems, it must do so at the biochemical level. additional genomic information is needed to build the new proteins and biological systems required for large-scale changes, where does the new biological information come from? thx
@leftpuman We've already had this debate and I gave you the answer, stop asking that question it's been answered a million times to you moron creationists.
@tkubok not only do mutations not add genetic information, DNA actually has self-repairing properties to stop and reverse mutations. sir, evolution by mutating cells is a laughable hypothesis. i promise u i mean no disrespect, but abiogenesis and a common ancestor are totally unfounded, faith-based theories by men who presuppose that there is not a God. tell me something, do u know that there is no Creator? and if so, how? thx
DNA has self repairing properties, but these properties fail on occasion as well. The human Zygote undergoes an average 64 mutations, and each generation undergoes anywhere from 1.6 to 175 mutations. What do you think down syndrome is?
Mutations add genetic information. Since the genome is only made up of 4 base pairs, mutations can increase the genome length and subsequently add information via a mechanism called Insertion mutations.
I never said that there is no creator, or no God. I dont believe in God, or a creator, because the claim that a God exists has not met its burden of proof. Just like i dont believe in Faeries, because there is no evidence, and no one has provided any evidence that Faeries exist.
A logical syllogism that is both valid and sound would be enough for me. But, i suppose, the easiest thing that God could do to convince me he exists, is if he simply showed himself to me, in person.
Burden of proof is something that lies on the person who makes a claim. In this case, it is "God exists". If you make that claim, you have the burden of proof, and have to provide evidence to show that God exists. If you fail to provide evidence, my disbelief is justified.
@tkubok i would disagree that the burden of proof is on me. if you believe that humans came from non-humans then the burden of proof is on you because what you are saying is something that nobody has ever seen and it goes against everything we know about procreation. when it is theory against fact, the burden of proof is on theory.
Im talking about the Burden of Proof in regards to whether God exists or not. I was not talking about Evolution. Please read my comments carefully.
Yes, the burden of proof is on me to show that humans came from non-humans. But the burden of proof that a God exists, is on you.
And no, we know that change occurs, that physical changes occur, and that physical changes stack. This is a fact. How does this fact go against the theory? Please explain.
@tkubok it is either God OR evolution, thats it. there is no 3rd option, if i have a ball in one of my hands, you dont have to find the hand with the ball in it to prove which is the correct hand, if u find one without the ball you have by default discovered which hand the ball is in. by disproving evolution, creation is proved. by disproving creation, evolution is proved. it is creation or evolution, that's it
Nice ad hominem on this comment page. The art of terrible debating 101, Appeal to authority, appeal to majority opinion, appeal to emotion, Ad hominem, claim assertion of fallacy without supporting evidences.
Good job guys, keep up the high level of terrible debating.
"Darwin’s idea has been an unmitigated failure from the start. Darwinist biology is perhaps the only major scientific theory which has subsisted in an unbroken state of crisis since its inception. I contend, in fact, that the Darwinian model has proved worthless as a biological paradigm, which is to say that Darwinism is not truly a scientific theory, but indeed an ideological postulate masquerading in scientific garb."
The only reason Shermer didn't embarass hovind was becuase there simply was not enough time to reute all his ridiculous and unfounded claims...that he just spews out at a mile per minute....I mean how could u debate someone who just lists off unfounded assertions and out right lies.bare in mind the man is also a conspiracy theorist..not just a creationist... he actually believes the WTC and OKC bombing were government plots..as well as the onset of every american war.
To whom it may concern: you're about to see dumbo Shermer get his behind tanned. You dumbo evos better get out a pen, a pad, and a bowl of popcorn; y'all are about to get spanked.
PulpPractical 3 days ago
are there many members of the Evolution Religion?
ikawpipa 3 days ago
Shermer just seems to get his ass handed to him everywhere he goes...geez
Buggz21 4 days ago
It is absolutely amazing that people actually believe the stuff that this Hovind character believes.... It's scary... Please people, please just be objective and open to the actual facts and evidence... If you want to have faith and belief in god, then by all means, do so... But don't let that belief force you into the ignorant darkness that Hovind wishes for humanity.
hookemdevildog 1 week ago
@hookemdevildog be more specific plz. what he said that was not correct? did he directly lie? he said I BELIEVE all the time, plz name examples where he said something with sure and it was a pure lie. go ahead. no more blurry words just stick to the point if u can
donfanto1 10 hours ago
I have a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech University.
AutoBahnForever 1 week ago
Before I listen to anything that comes out of hovinds mouth, I would like to hear why he wont give a known-age sample to scientists to use radiometric dating. HHMmmmmmm maybe its because he know it works. haha
Johnf85 1 week ago
@Johnf85 lmao he alreaty talked about that " when they ont know the exact age its assumed to work, but when they know the exact age they say that in this particular case it didnt worked..." how can a living snail carbondate 2300 years? or freshly killed seal date 1300 years?10 out of 11 carbon date examples are rejected. its like 95 % error (roughly) which means it cant be caled a science. its like breaking 10 heads over a brick wall and when 11th one breaks it saying that head can break a wall
donfanto1 10 hours ago
Mortal Combat ending: Finish Him...Kent Hovind Wins
CombatAthletix1 3 weeks ago
It would be a better world if Hovind had years tacked on to his jail sentence for stupid in addition to his laundry list of other crimes.
bmwill1983 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great debate! Next I think I'll listen to an Ob-Gyn debate s stork theorist.
setmedic 1 month ago
Comment removed
setmedic 1 month ago
@setmedic
Hey, dont diss the stalk theory its a brilliant and amazing theory that should be taught to children belwo the age of 9.
tkubok 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
menriquex 1 month ago
Hovind its just so fucking plain STUPID!!!!!!! fuck, thats why other countries believe Americans are just stupid.
menriquex 1 month ago
Kent Hovind should be selling used cars. He'd be good at that.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 month ago
@NevilleRhysBarnes Would you buy a car from Kent Hovind? What car do you want? What car would he try to sell you?
foroparapente 1 month ago
@foroparapente No, I wouldn't buy a car from him. But from the applause he got, there are plenty who buy into what he's selling.
NevilleRhysBarnes 1 month ago
Kent hoVInd is a joke.
EinSofQuester 1 month ago
hovind lol This is a man whom gave himself a doctorate.
AquariaDesign 1 month ago
Comment removed
soygoratsu 1 month ago
I wish Hovind wasn't so arrogant and stop doing all these scripted jokes every damn time he speaks. Even now when his son has taken over the seminars, he also uses the same damn script and the same jokes! It feels so effortless and dead.
soygoratsu 1 month ago
@tkubok I have rambled on long enough. I confess that much of my rebuttal turned into theological which I said would be pointless. I'm hoping that I was wrong on that point. :)
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkubok All I'm trying to say is you were created for a purpose which I know you reject. There is a value attached to you by "Him". God has chosen to give you this message in various ways one of which happens to be me. "Why?", I don't know and that's ok. tkubok my prayer is that "your eyes will be opened so that you will see the colors of this world. " :)
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
I dont consider that Okay at all. And i can demonstrate why it isnt.
Lets say, Satan comes to you, and lies to you that he is God, and asks you to sacrifice your son to him. What would you do?
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok You may also ask "If God exists why doesn't he do such and such in this way or that?." I will tell you just what Michael Shermer states in this video. "I don't know and that's ok". It doesn't disprove God it only means God's ways are not our ways. I believe that someday we will know all the answers but that is left to a more complete theological discussion.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
You seem to be simply asserting that god exists. Anyone can assert anything, you know. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?
vinegarthomas 1 month ago
@powersfour
You have it kind of backwards there. It doesnt disprove God, but it also doesnt support Gods existence, either. As i said before, i do not deny the possibility of God, but i am unconvinced because of Lack of evidence. And thats where the burden of proof lies, on the person making the claim.
Let me ask you this question. Do you believe that God has revealed himself physically, in instances like Thomas or Paul/saul?
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok Is my belief based purely on blind faith? Those who don't believe will say yes because they can't see God within this orderly universe. They don't see God when a newborn baby comes into this world or when they see the sun rise and set. You ask "If God exists why doesn't He just show Himself." My answer to this is with another question, "If God showed Himself would you really believe Him?" My answer to the second question is no.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
When you see a stillborn child, or a child with a terrible birth defect, do you still see God in them? Do you see God in an orphaned, starving child whose parents have died from a natural disaster? I would guess not, and neither do I. But the difference between you and me, is that I also dont see God in the Good, either. You are picking and choosing, attributing the Good with God and not the Bad. This is why this specific argument alone, fails. Its cherry picking.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok Stating that evil exists is correct, but you can't conclude God doesn't exist from this; you cannot define evil apart from the absolute standard that the Designer instituted. Simply put, define evil, and then once you have a workable definition, let it be known why it bothers you. Admitting that it does bother you (which it ought) implies that things ought to be different. Who gets to decide what it should be changed to, and what authority does this person have to do so?
guardianewjedijoel 1 week ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Yes, you can, if the specific characteristic of God you are using, is both omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. I would define evil as Harmful, causing bad, or morally wrong.
We have something called the english language, and it has already dictated what the definition of Evil, is.
tkubok 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guardianewjedijoel
Yes, you can, if the specific characteristic of God you are using, is both omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. I would define evil as Harmful, causing bad, or morally wrong.
We have something called the english language, and it has already dictated what the definition of Evil, is.
tkubok 1 week ago
@powersfour
As for the question of "If God showed himself, would you really believe him?" My answer would be.... YES!
When God shows himself, his goal is to convince me that he exists.
God, is also all knowing, and therefore knows what it would take to convince me that he exists.
Ergo, if God shows himself, and wants to convince me that he exists, he is doing so with the knowledge that i will be convinced.
So let me ask, why would your answer to this question, be No?
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok After my last statement you will write me off as completely delusional and that is why I try to adhere to reason and logic and try to bring the conversation back to the beginning of the universe and existence. The great question "WHY?" You seem to be saying we're here because we're here lets just make the best of it. I am saying we are here because of God, let God make the best of us.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
No, i have not written you off as completely delusional. I understand where youre coming from, but you are committing a mistake that most theists make.
First off, let me just say, "We are here because we are here" is a tautology. It is true whether God exists or not. If God created us, then we are still here because we are here, much like a rock would still be a rock.
tkubok 1 month ago
A theological debate is pointless when one side completely rejects any possibility of a God. On my side of the argument I compare it to trying to explain color to a person that is blind from birth. Unless they're eyes are opened they will never really fully comprehend and maybe even doubt that what you describe is really true. Ultimately what I am claiming is that my eyes have been open. Do I think I'm better than someone who is still blind? Absolutely not.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
First off, i do not reject the possibility of God. The problem i have, is that no one has provided sufficient evidence that a God exists to me. All they have is hear-say personal experiences which are useless to me, because I have not experienced them.
Secondly, You can demonstrate that colors exist to a blind person, in multiple ways. Its why we have so many blind people who believe that Colors, photographs, exist. This is untrue with Gods existence.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok As far as my statement, "The event that was done on purpose" , I am claiming that God has purposefully created all of this and has purposefully given each of us a free will within all of this. That is my whole point in regards to the analogies of chance. I don't believe life is a poker game or that it's like a car without a steering wheel. We are because God said. It is as simple as that. I see all around me law and order. How can there be law without a lawgiver?
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
I apologize for my late reply, the christmas holidays were busy for me.
In regards to Gods purpose, do you believe that God has created earth and the events leading up to your life, or did he simply create earth at the beginning and sat back doing nothing?
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Also, if you are talking about the laws and order of nature, then the "Law without a lawgiver" argument doesnt work. The laws of nature are descriptive whereas the laws that we know, have lawmakers, are proscriptive. You are extending what we see in society, and concluding the same must occur in nature. The problem with this is painfully obvious when one looks at man-made lakes, and conclude that all lakes must be made by man.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok First of all on the topic of moral objectivism vs moral relativism and what I believe. This might not be the best forum for beginning a debate on that. I think we both know which side each of us would be on in that argument. I know the arguments of both sides and I'm pretty sure you do as well. The fundamental answer of why and where we come from determines how we begin our logical equation in forming our opinion on that. We may want to find a different forum to carry on that discussion.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkubok Hope u didn't give up on me . I finally had a chance to read your response. I will respond somewhat in reverse order of the questions you asked and the points you are "trying" :) to make. First of all I enjoy this civil discussion where no name calling is involved. I respect your opinion and you are respecting mine. I appreciate that.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkbok I have rebuttals in regards to your analogies of historical evidence as well but this topic of purpose is very foundational and I hate to veer to far from it if you don't mind. I'm running long as well so I'll wait for your response.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
By "The event that was done on purpose", are you claiming that God has purposefully led your life up to this point?
Also, as for the historical evidence stuff, it doesnt really matter if we look at moses, or the SS from Nazi Germany. I do not believe, for a second, that the hitler youth knew they were doing evil, but decided to do it anyways. Just like i do not believe that Suicide bombers are knowingly doing evil but disregard it.
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Just one more thing. Going back to a previous discussion we had, can i ask you, do you believe that moral absolutes exist, and where it comes from?
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkbok My sense of purpose is derived from outside of the event that was done on purpose. What happens around me makes no difference. Even if I'm put into solitary confinement for the rest of my life I still have purpose and a reason for living.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkbok Once you lost your steering wheel where she's goes nobody knows. Your sense of purpose is derived from within the mechanism of shear luck, chance accident whatever you want to call it. Sure I'll give you credit that laws of physics dictates this or that after the fact but why did it start. You apply purpose to something that came into existence for the same reason that you came into existence which really was for no reason at all.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
I cannot see the difference between what you are describing, and, for example, winning the lottery and becoming convinced that the Lotto commission had rigged the game in order for you to win. Youre believing that a God has rigged the events of the history of the universe, of mankind, up to this point. Wouldnt you agree that it would be absurd to believe that the Lottery Commission had rigged the game in order for you to win?
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
"You apply purpose to something that came into existence for the same reason that you came into existence which really was for no reason at all"-You
Again, i would disagree. Going back to the poker analogy, Whether the deck was rigged for you to get a royal flush, or whether it was pure blind chance that you got a royal flush on your first try, doesnt change the fact that you got a Royal flush. It wouldnt change the value or meaning that you have placed in the card.
Cont
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
I am, in a way, living proof of this. I reject the claim that we were created with an inherent meaning and purpose, yet i myself have succeeded in placing meaning and value onto things in my life. If we found out, somehow, that God does not exist, it would not change my life in regards to what i value and place meaning on.
tkubok 1 month ago
If you told your poker story in that way you would be laughed at. Sure I'll give you credit for being able to count up to five and grab five cards but beyond that you really had no control. Another possible analogy may be a car wreck. You tell the story of how your steering wheel came off and lost control. You then begin to explain it in a laughable way. "then on purpose I ran into the ditch over the the fence and then over the cliff."
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkbok Here's where I want to form some sort of logic in regards to purpose. Your argument for purpose begins after a non-purposeful event.Other terms used could be accident or chance.My argument for purpose begins before the beginning of this existence as we know it and it was done on purpose.This is where your poker analogy falls short. If you were telling a story about your poker game and said "and then I drew 5 cards and on purpose I made a full house and beat the other guys pair of two's".
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
Im sorry I caused you a sleepless night. Hope you slept well last night.
I couldnt agree with you more. I had no control beyond simply grabbing five cards and counting up to five. This, i believe, is the very definition of random chance.
But, lets flip this around somewhat. Lets say you and I were in a poker game with two more of your friends, and that this was your first game, ever. I hand you five cards, and you just happen to get a royal flush.
Cont...
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Now, at that point, you may start to believe that, since this was your first time playing poker, we had stacked the deck so that you would get the royal flush on your first try, as a joke.
This outlines the problem with your argument. If you place value and meaning on the outcome, it can also lead you to believe that the entirety of it was purposefully stacked in order to produce that outcome, even if it was done by pure chance.
tkubok 1 month ago
Now I think we both agree that existence as we know it had some sort of beginning. How it came to be is where we quickly part ways. I hope I'm right on that assumption of your belief. Going back any further I'm not sure where you stand. Was there something that came from nothing or was there something that always was and just happened to explode into some sort of order through laws of physics that always have existed. Regardless I think we can also agree that we could debate that for eternity.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkbok My dear tkubok thanks to you I had somewhat of a sleepless night. So I will begin my rebuttal with a sleepy brain and see if I can recall my arguments that were formed on the fringes of my dreams while I was in my bed. I want to bring us back to our discussion of purpose. To bring us back to logic on this topic we need to go back to the very foundation of existence. The difference between where you begin your argument and where I begin are very different.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkubok lol no apologies needed. I appreciate your responses. I actually hadn't completed my complete train of thought but was cut short due to a birthday party. My response would have been longer. I've read your responses and will respond tomorrow. I'm wiped out tonight.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkubok Evolutionarily speaking the creature that risks his life to save another will become extinct very quickly. Whatever dna make up that causes that creature to do right and yet sacrifice it's existence cannot possibly survive long. On the flip side that dna make of the creature that never risks its existence will flourish.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
Actually, not so. Vervet Monkeys, will actually call out, alerting his fellow monkeys of predators, even though making noise alerts the predator to his location. There is a benefit to saving the entire society at the cost of a few. There is a benefit to sacrifice one to save many. And yes, Vervet monkeys still exist today, despite thier actions. Perhaps, because of it.
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Now, thinking from the opposite end of the court, what if there existed an afterlife? What meaning, what purpose would life have, then?
First, lets ignore Hell and Heaven for a second. An eternal afterlife, is sort of like having an infinite amount of US dollars. Sure, it sounds good, but practically speaking, it would be devastating. If you kept spending that money, the US dollar would become worthless.
Cont....
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Cont... Its the same reason why the US cannot simply print more $100 bills to get out of debt, doing so would cause massive inflation. In reality, the reason why the US Dollar is worth anything is because of its limit. The fact that something is limited, increases its worth. The fact that life ends, that this is it, increases this lifes worth as well. Whats the point of our 60-70 years if theres an unlimited afterlife beyond that?
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Also, i apologize for my long long comments. Sorry, but I had a lot to say about this issue. :)
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok But yet deep down you know this would be completely wrong. Out of macro evolution how could there evolve a creature that knows a right and a wrong way to live and have a very real choice to do either one. For example, you see a man drowning. You have a choice to make. You could jump in to save him but risk your life or you could just wave good bye to him and risk nothing. Deep down you know the right thing to do but you still have a choice.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
Our knowledge of right and wrong, is easily explained by evolution. It has to do with survival, the most basic of instincts. We have recognized, that a society has a higher chance of survival, than independent individuals. This isnt just in Humans, other animals exhibit this trait, too. Wolves actually form packs, and exile any wolf that strays or does something to harm that pack. How do wolves know how to exist in society, just like humans?
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
As for drowning, this is easily explained through evolution as well. People tend to act nicely to you, if you act nicely to them. If you go around, being a jerk all the time, people are less likely to help you in times of need. If i go and save someone from drowning, i may not be expecting an immediate return, but what i am doing, is creating a societal norm where we all benefit from each other by helping each other. Its the only possible way a society can survive.
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Furthermore, our knowledge of right and wrong, is so simple, so extremely simple, that they are nearly identical to the moral compass of animals. All you need to do is read the bible to understand this. Moses orders the slaughter of children, but lets the virgin women alive so that they can be raped by his men. Would this be acceptable in modern society, if our troops in Iraq were raping Iraqi women, and slaughtering children? of course not. Yet Moses thought it was.
tkubok 1 month ago
You live and you die and your done. If this is the case why even waste your time in a silly debate. Does it really matter? If I were you I wouldn't waste anymore time. Live life as if you were the only thing that counts. If it it feels and tastes good you better do it and keep on doing it cause once you're gone you're gone.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
I do live my life to the fullest. I debate, i discuss, not only because i enjoy interacting with people, but also because i happen to care about my society, and other people. I understand that i am not alone, i cannot live alone, and i need society in order to live comfortably. I need someone to fix my car. I need someone to operate the Bus. This is why society is important to me, and why i care about others.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok As to your sense of purpose and to the law of human nature ie morals, I'm just trying to follow the logical course that macro evolution would take. If there was this Big Bang out of shear chance everything that follows, at least in my line of reasoning, would be of complete chance. This would include you, your family and society. If this is the case then how can there be a purpose or meaning or even absolutes. Out of these billions of years here comes you all 70 to 90 years worth of you.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
Let me address this one at a time.
Firstly, i do not believe in absolutes. Wouldnt you agree, that we should be humble and accept the possibility that we may be wrong? If so, then neither do you.
Secondly, its a common misconception that the big bang, or everything after that, is based on shear chance. The truth is, everything that followed after the big bang was governed by the laws of physics, which isnt based on chance at all.
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
Thirdly, think of it as a game of poker. The cards you get are completely random, yet we as human beings have placed meaning and value in specific combinations of cards. Nothing prevents us from placing meaning and value on things, despite its origins.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok I didn't mean to infer that you believed that the universe always existed I was just pointing out that at some point science cannot completely decipher. You may claim that you are basing your "belief" on the best scientific evidence but you do not "know" for certain nor do I, at least from a naturalistic standpoint. In my life I have experienced the presence and power of God but I don't really expect you to believe me at face value. I could be completely delusional and easily dismissed.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
What do you mean by "Do not "know" for certain"? If you are talking about not knowing for certain, simply because it happened before our time, and we cannot observe it, then i agree, we cannot know for certain. But that would apply to World War 1, as well. All we have about our past, is the evidence. Neither of us lived through World War 1, or the Napoleonic wars, but we believe they occured because of the evidence.
tkubok 1 month ago
I allways admire the patience of the hovind debaters. I really would like to see a hovind hitchens confrontation.
twentyinchsoul 1 month ago
1:33:33
Oh. I'll help you out here, Shermer. :(
The best evidence for the Big Bang is ... that it IS STILL THERE and CAN BE SEEN.
The cosmic microwave background radiation is a stretched photograph of the event, pasted across the entire sky in universe-high resolution.
Go to Google Sky and click microwave.
You are now LOOKING AT the Big Bang. That's it. It's there, it's real, and you can see it.
rkyeun 1 month ago
wow, after hearing that applause for kent hovind i lost a bit of hope for humanity :(
Dpesh7 1 month ago
51:28 He doesn't know that the hyena on his slide isn't a canid, but a feliforme.
51:50 He doesn't know that their crossbreeds are infertile because of mutations to gamete receptors and that this is why you can't mate a dog with the far further removed banana.
52:05 He doesn't know what increases in diversity have already been observed even in just his own examples of dog and cow and corn varieties from wolves, aurochs, and maize.
He DOESN'T know ANYTHING, so GOD DID IT, so he KNOWS EVERYTHING.
rkyeun 1 month ago
50:28 He doesn't know about the peacock or bird of paradise.
50:35 He doesn't understand how selective breeding works.
50:47 He doesn't know that the world is real.
50:54 He doesn't know the mechanisms by which information is added.
50:57 He doesn't know that genetic complexity increases.
51:06 He doesn't know about liposome protobionts.
51:12 He doesn't know about maize.
51:18 He doesn't know why corn shouldn't grow whales.
51:22 He doesn't know what divergent evolution is.
rkyeun 1 month ago
49:26 He doesn't know that taxonomy agrees with the five year old.
49:32 He doesn't know what a kind is.
49:46 He doesn't know that cockroaches resist sledgehammers primarily by hiding in walls and breeding rapidly, or what might stop them from actually just evolving tough enough shells to take the blow.
50:00 He doesn't know how science works.
50:07 He doesn't know what information is.
50:11 He doesn't know what variety is.
50:20 He doesn't know what's in the original genes.
rkyeun 1 month ago
47:53 He doesn't know what's on the next page of that textbook.
48:17 He doesn't know that heterozygous anemia carriers resist malaria without suffering anemia, or that inconvenience by anemia is less dangerous than death by malaria.
48:30 He doesn't know of Limone Sul Garda HDL tolerance, Tibetan Glycophorin A, CCR5-delta 32, female tetrachromia, anti-myostatin, or LRP5 enhancement, and all those just in humans and just in recent history.
49:05 He doesn't know how gene fixation occurs.
rkyeun 1 month ago
46:09 He doesn't know what assumptions the theory of evolution makes or what facts support those assumptions.
46:29 He doesn't know the proof that plants and animals are related.
46:43 He doesn't know what the sentence after the section he quote mined says.
47:10 He doesn't know what information is or how mutations work.
47:33 He doesn't know what scramble or new means.
47:36 He doesn't know about duplications, transposons, or frameshifts.
47:51 He doesn't know what the word most means.
rkyeun 1 month ago
44:20 He doesn't know what hypocrisy is.
44:25 He doesn't know what he wants.
44:35 He doesn't know the standing of scientific theories.
44:40 He doesn't know what either a fact or a theory are.
44:43 He doesn't know what a mantra is.
45:13 He doesn't know what peer review is.
45:30 He doesn't know what goes on in universities.
45:48 He doesn't know what populations are.
46:03 He doesn't know mollusks breathe water and weren't supposedly brought on the ark.
rkyeun 1 month ago
43:33 He doesn't know what he is.
43:45 He doesn't know that Kent is an Old English name meaning "edge" (as in he's gone completely over the) and that the Welsh name meaning bright is Kenn, not Kent, and that bright, shining, and white in Welsh are variations of llachar, disgleirio, and gwyn.
43:57 He doesn't know why his citation of the law and the content of the textbook being upheld in court is evidence against his position.
44:11 He doesn't know how rapidly evolutionary theory is advancing.
rkyeun 1 month ago
43:24 He doesn't know about transitional fossils, radiometric dating, geology, plate tectonics, radiotrophic fungus, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, endogenous retroviruses, mitochondrial DNA, pseudogenes, anatomy, vestigial structures, embryonic development, biochemistry, biogeography, atavisms, paleontology, endemism, adaptive radiation, antibiotic resistance, pesticide resistance, E. coli experiment series, nylonase, lactose intolerance, dosophilia speciations, and domestication.
rkyeun 1 month ago
40:14 He doesn't know what a solution space is.
40:16 He doesn't know what the scientific view is.
40:25 He doesn't understand what scope or domain are.
40:31 He doesn't know what divine mandate is.
40:36 He doesn't know what atheism is, or what religion Hitler was.
40:56 He doesn't know what irony is.
42:07 He doesn't know what a worldview is.
42:31 He doesn't know the context of bible verses.
42:37 He doesn't know the time scale involved.
42:56 He doesn't mind tax-exempt status for churches.
rkyeun 1 month ago
37:54 He doesn't know what speciation or a kind is.
37:57 He doesn't know how taxonomy works.
38:13 He doesn't know what variation is.
38:26 He doesn't know what evidence and observations have been gathered.
38:32 He doesn't know what he's talking about.
38:38 He doesn't know about reproductive barriers.
38:40 He doesn't know what a species is.
38:57 He doesn't know what evolution is or says.
38:58 He doesn't know what the big bang theory is or says.
39:55 He doesn't know what a metaphor is.
rkyeun 1 month ago
36:12 He doesn't know what the big bang or pair production are.
36:20 He doesn't know what nucleosynthesis is.
36:34 He doesn't know what supernovas are.
36:43 He doesn't know how stars form.
36:53 He doesn't know what nebulae are.
36:15 He doesn't know what abiogenesis is.
37:25 He doesn't know that spontaneous generation isn't abiogenesis.
37:33 He doesn't know how to take his own advice.
37:42 He doesn't know where babies come from.
37:47 He doesn't know what prove means.
rkyeun 1 month ago
35:00 He doesn't know the canyons and deltas show millennia of erosion rather than rapid erosion.
35:10 He doesn't know what a legend is.
35:19 He doesn't know how rocks are dated.
35:22 He doesn't know how upright fossils form. But at least he admits he doesn't know.
35:37 He doesn't know how fossilization and erosion work.
35:40 He doesn't know how thinking works.
35:46 He doesn't know what assumptions are.
35:51 He doesn't know what religion is.
36:00 He doesn't know who funds football.
rkyeun 1 month ago
33:41 He doesn't know what evolution or morality are.
33:49 He doesn't know that Osama Bin Laden's morality comes from the same god as his.
34:00 He doesn't know that morality is innate to social species.
34:03 He doesn't know what death is.
34:05 He doesn't know what wonderful or heroes are.
34:10 He doesn't know about gene flow.
34:18 He doesn't know what a plot is.
34:24 He doesn't know what sin is.
34:27 He doesn't know what destroyed is.
34:36 He doesn't know how much water that would take.
rkyeun 1 month ago
31:38 He doesn't know what abiogenesis or evolution is.
31:52 He doesn't know what love, justice, mercy, right, wrong, conscience, or absolute truth are.
31:58 He doesn't know what "exist" means.
32:11 Okay! Finally, 6 and 7 are at least predictions instead of postdictions!
32:41 He doesn't know about life expectancy, nutrition, medicine, or standards of living.
32:49 He doesn't know how age is determined.
33:20 He doesn't know about Y-Adam or Mito-Eve.
33:30 He doesn't know what fantasy is.
rkyeun 1 month ago
29:17 He doesn't know what the scientific method is.
29:54 He doesn't know about serial numbers, toolmarks, or brand names.
30:23 He doesn't know what the words "literally", "true", "scientific", or "accurate" mean.
30:34 He doesn't know what evidence is.
30:41 He doesn't know what a PREdiction is.
31:00 He doesn't know how symbiosis can occur.
31:10 He doesn't know what a "kind" is.
31:22 He doesn't know where corn or cows came from.
31:32 He doesn't know where dogs came from.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@ 27:44
Results: "My name's Kent Hovind, I taught high school science 15 years-" YEP, THAT'S THE SCRIPT. Regardless of what previous presenters have said, how many people he's playing to, or what his audience is, that is the same single sermon he gives every time. "This is not my wife, it's just a picture of her." Same bad jokes. "I'm against lies."
Conclusion: Hovind is a fucktard.
rkyeun 1 month ago
I have not watched this video yet.
Let's do an experiment!
Background: Kent Hovind is a convicted fraudster who recites his lines from a memorized script, which he repeats every time the same way.
Hypothesis: When Hovind's turn comes, he will talk about how long he's taught high school biology, and then fail at vocabulary which high school students would be expected to learn from him.
Materials: This video.
Methods: Watch until Hovind's turn.
... HERE WE GO!
rkyeun 1 month ago
Best video thumbnail ever!!!
ChristopherHitchslap 1 month ago
...Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology,"Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) (Nobel Prize winner)
clintmmartin 1 month ago
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation,that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by LouisPasteur and others.That leaves us with the only possible conclusionthat life arose asa supernatural creativeact of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not wantto believe inGod...
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological....
tkubok 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
....Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.
Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material....
tkubok 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view.(Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology,"Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958)
tkubok 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
This is what is actually said on page 100, scientific american, vol 199, september 1958 edition. The quote you have brought up is actually a summarization that is both out of context and false.
This is why quote mines fail.
tkubok 1 month ago
I dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist.
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
I dont need to have faith to be an evolutionist, there is plenty of evidence.
If all the evidence you can bring, is a quotemine, out of context, and fake, to support your belief against evolution, then you clearly dont have enough faith to be against evolution either.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok What is one piece of evidence in evolution. Lets just stick to one to keep it on subject. Not "micro-evolution".
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes that remained separate in all other species of ape except humans.
rkyeun 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
There is no simple "One peice" of evolution, anymore than dropping a ball on earth proves that there is gravity on mars.
The MANY evidences for evolution, include the many fossil lineages that we have that show the transition of species, the Genetic evidence that "Coincidentally" coincides with similar morphology, as well as the observed instances of speciation.
Oh, and also, Micro evolution is evolution. The word is in there!
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok What specific fossil lineages do you speak of that prove macro-evolution?
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
Everything, from the fossil lineage of Humans and ape-like ancestors, to the fossil lineage of Horses, to the fossil lineage of Birds. But, as i said before, there is no "One" peice of evidence for evolution, the Theory of evolution is built up on many feilds, and many peices of evidence.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok What is an example of "fossil lineage of Humans and ape-like ancestors" that supports macro-evolution?
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
Again, there is no single example of a fossil that support macroevolution. Everything from Neanderthals, Homo erectus to Austrolopithicus afarensis, Africanus, produces a lineage of ape-like ancestors to humans.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok Lets talk about Homo erectus (Java and Peking man). Shortly after Darwin published his Origin of the Species, a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois, went in search of Pithecanthropus in Sumatra. Dubois had been a student of Ernst Haeckel, famous for his "biogenetic Law" that stated a human embryo went through a sequential evolutionary stage of its ancestors. It is now well known through medical science that this is far from true. What else is well known is that Haeckel falsifiedmost...
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@tkubok ...of his data. As Dubois came under increasing attack, he became very secretive about his fossil finds - to the point of hiding them under his dining room floor and refusing to let them be examined. A few years before his death in 1940, Dubois finally admitted the skulls were in his opinion those of a large Gibbon. Evolutionists however refused to accept this and to this day it is still being taught as a transitional, though all modern scientists have debunked it.
clintmmartin 1 month ago
@clintmmartin
First off, what Dubois actually said, was "Gigantic Genus allied to the Gibbon".
Secondly, what you, or most likely the website you got this from, failed to mention, is that Dubois followed up on the claim with the words "very much too large for an anthropoid ape", and never stopped believing that he found a skeleton ancestor to man.
So, based on those two facts, what exactly do Evolutionists have to refuse to accept?
tkubok 1 month ago
People go for charisma, not facts. Sad, really.
Always be wary of a charismatic orater.
webloomco 1 month ago
Hovind pwned that guy.
RG7621 1 month ago
@RG7621 No he didn't.
Task5003 1 month ago
@tkubok You are not alone in leaving God to the last place to look for answers. What if you looked and found a God that wanted to change you from the inside out. A God that not only asked but also did it for you. That is the God I have found. No I can't put Him in a test tube, it is by faith. Please don't take my comments as an attack on you.I really do want to know where you are coming from. It is like we come from two different worlds.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
This is what i never understood about this argument. Maybe you can clear things up. Why doesnt God simply reveal himself to everyone? Why does he force us to rely on faith? I dont know if youre a christian, or if you simply believe that God exists, but either way, it makes no sense as to why he would deliberately hide himself life this.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok I guess my question to you would be where do you derive your purpose if you are nothing more than a chain reaction over billions of years? Why would it matter if I do right for that same reason? Why would it matter if I do wrong to a fellow human? If I rape a woman couldn't I excuse it by claiming I'm just fulfilling an urge that has evolved over billions of years? So what if other humans think it is wrong and lock me up I have no reason to be sorry for my action. They are wrong.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
As for where i derive my purpose, my purpose comes from my family, friends, and the society i live in. This is what i never understood about this question of "Where else could you derive purpose and meaning from, except from a God?" Do you seriously believe that your family, friends means nothing to you?
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
As for why it would matter if you do the right thing, thanks to living in this society, both you and I have been brought up, being taught that these are wrong, and have created a moral compass accordingly. It all has to do with society. I truly doubt, unless you are a sociopath, that you could rape and murder without feeling a tinge of guilt.
tkubok 1 month ago
@powersfour
However, if you were raised in saudi arabia, and you were taught that killing a woman on the street if she did not have her hair and face covered was a social necessity, and you were dumped in the middle of the US and killed a woman for this reason, you probably would think that you have no reason to be sorry, and that they are wrong.
tkubok 1 month ago
I guess my main point in my last comment is that at some point in a discussion of where we have come from there's a breaking point where science no longer can decipher. We jump into faith. You can believe that the universe has always existed and I can believe that God has always existed. Both require a faith.I guess that is why I begin to look into the subject of right and wrong, good and evil, to try to bring some kind of logic into the equation.
powersfour 1 month ago
@powersfour
Actually, just to clear things up, i dont believe that the universe has always existed. I just wanted to point out, that it is one possibility that exists.
As for faith, the only problem i have with it, is that its a poor way of determining whether your beliefs are true, or whether they are false. I prefer my beliefs to be true, which is why i only base my beliefs on evidence, and reasoned arguments.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok No need to apologize in your delayed response. I'm sure we both have a life outside of responding to a blog. I rarely enter into discussions such as this via the internet but I find this discussion to be very intriguing even though its a debate that is ancient as time. Trying to understand how someone else thinks is a very good way to challenge myself in my understandings and beliefs. Once again I really appreciate your responses.
powersfour 1 month ago
@tkubok If we try to argue that there is no such thing as good or bad or right or wrong we have already lost the argument since we are arguing that we are right. I know I have wandered a long way from the topic of macro evolution. Macro evolution when used to argue away the existence of a God leads us to all these other topics.
powersfour 2 months ago
@tkubok Nothing matters including science. What gives you the desire to study science? What gives us humans the desire to study, research and improve our existence? We can narrow the conversation even further to the study of good and bad. Who told us that when our heart beats and blood flows through our veins and our lungs expand and contract that that is a good thing, What if I tried to make the argument that we got it all wrong? It's better when all those functions are stopped.
powersfour 2 months ago
@tkubok If we assume that there is something that has always been we quickly find ourselves at a dead end of which science and faith collide. I tend to study things in science to give me a reason for why I personally am alive. Why am I here? Why do I matter? Why does it matter that my wife is here or you are here? Why do any of my relationships with anybody or anything matter? If I don't matter or have a reason than life and science itself falls into one heap of rubble. Nothing matters.
powersfour 2 months ago
@powersfour
But God is the last place i would ever look for any answer. Following God, is no different than following a Dictator. And the existance of hell, is no different than having a Gun pointed to your head.
I prefer my beliefs to be as true as possible. And the current, best method of figuring whether my beliefs are True, is through critically thinking, analysis, reasoning, and logic, i.e. Science.
tkubok 1 month ago
@tkubok I really appreciate your response tkubok. You have given me some things to study and think about. I do admit that how I view the world comes from my view of God and my relationship with Him. Obviously when you insert God into the reason why we exist He would be the One that also created all laws of which we strive to learn and decipher. He himself would stand outside the element of time, space etc. It seems to me there has to be something that has always been.
powersfour 2 months ago
@powersfour
Ive just finished reading your comments, and i apologize for the late reply.
The problem that i see in your comments, is that none of what you said, requires a God or diety. You dont need a God to have purpose in your life, or to know wrong from right. You dont even need a God to believe in something that has always existed(i.e. the universe could have always been). The questions youve asked, are important, theyre important to me as well.
tkubok 1 month ago
I almost forgot. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. What are you thankful for today? I'm thankful that I have evolved into something that experiences happiness because happiness sure feels good. If you see someone unhappy today please help them out and make them happy. :)
powersfour 2 months ago
If the odds are that good I think I can win the jackpot in my favorite casino everyday for the next 100 years. I'm a simple man with simple thoughts but I make no apologies for it. God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and I will be the first to admit that I fall into that "chosen" category. Maybe the "wise" have not been been shamed just yet by us "fools" but there is a day that is coming. But that's not science is it?
powersfour 2 months ago
Moving from the court room, "Burden of Proof", to the casino, what are the odds that what we call humans evolved from dirt to the point where we can debate over the internet, which the highly evolved dirt created? Not only that but after I type these words and push the post button I will create a chemical reaction inside many evolved pieces of dirt throughout the world, at least the pieces of evolved dirt that read English, and cause a chain reaction of both positive and negative.
powersfour 2 months ago
@powersfour
Heres why the probability argument fails.
You have 2 lottery tickets. One, is a winning lottery number, with the ticket number as 123456. The other, is a losing lottery number, with the ticket number 654321.
Now, what are the odds of getting the 123456 lottery ticket? Around 1 in 13 million.
What are the odds of getting the 654321 lottery ticket? The same, 1 in 13 million.
tkubok 2 months ago
@powersfour
This is a field of physics known as Statistical thermodynamics, which states that ANY system is infinitely improbable. If we go by your logic, then a glass of water could not exist, because the probability of each water molecule, being in its exact location at any one time, is infinitely improbable. Yet, we know this is false, because the glass of water exists. The mistake you are making, is looking at our current state of existance AS A GOAL, when we know this to be FALSE.
tkubok 2 months ago
i love how hovind says ME ME and not meme (meem)
jabblesfan1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I CAN PROVE evolution is a myth! we evolve very slowly through each generation right? Well why is Eric Hovind just as stupid as his dad?
dilwich123 2 months ago
"Fear none of those things which you shall suffer. Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried, and you shall have tribulation TEN DAYS: be you faithful to death, and I will give you a crown of life." Revelation 2:11
As you may (or may not) know, biblicaly speaking, a prophetic DAY is a literal YEAR.
Kent Hovind was sentenced to 10 years.
DelusionTerminator 2 months ago
@DelusionTerminator
BTW, Hovind is not spending 10 years in prison, he is being released on 2015. So your Day year argument fails. Nice try though.
tkubok 2 months ago
Man this Kent Hovind is stupid, I'm glad we're more secular in the UK :D
hatboxman92 2 months ago
I'm really glad Kent Hovind is in jail so he can't spread any more stupidity.
Just because he doesn't understand it due to his limited intellect does not mean it's not true. That's just like saying a foreign language does not make any sense to anyone because I don't understand the words.
One should learn and try to understand the basic concepts before forming an opinion.
Biased jerk.
photographer85 2 months ago 2
@photographer85 The very reason that Hovind is in jail is because he is very dangerous to the lies, and the liars. Most atheists desperately HOPE that there is no God, and that evolution is true, so that they don't have any need to change their lives, and so that they can get away scot free with every evil that they ever committed. That's exactly why there is so much anger, animosity, and hatred harbored by you, and people like you.
DelusionTerminator 2 months ago
@DelusionTerminator He is in jail because he is a fraudster and a lair, stealing other peoples money with false promises and not paying taxes. Have you listened to the phone calls he made to his son and his wife, trying to remove further incriminating evidence and more?
Of course it's easy to play the victim when you'e a criminal, just tell everyone that there's some vast conspiracy out there (some nuts will always fall for that one) and when you end up in jail it's not bc of your crimes.
photographer85 2 months ago
@DelusionTerminator
I hope that God doesnt exist, so that i can keep on killing random people and raping women.
Oh wait, i dont do any of that. I dont steal, i dont drink excessively, i never kill or rape. So what "Evil" exactly, am i trying to get away with?
Also, is that the same as how Christians hope that there is no ALLAH, and that Islam is false and christianity is true, so that they dont have to change their lives?
Funny how your argument works when the tables are turned.
tkubok 2 months ago
@DelusionTerminator Funny how your username is ''DelusionTerminator'' when you are one delusioned nutcase. '' Most atheists desperately HOPE that there is no God, and that evolution is true'' Evolution is not about wether or not there's a God, it's about the diversity of life. You don't know what you're talking about, you don't even have the slightest idea! Obviously science is too complex for you so you have to resort to bronze age religions and that's just sad.
Reasonwillwin 2 months ago
@Reasonwillwin Hello, if macroevolution occurs in biological systems, it must do so at the biochemical level. additional genomic information is needed to build the new proteins and biological systems required for large-scale changes, where does the new biological information come from? thx
leftpuman 2 months ago
@leftpuman We've already had this debate and I gave you the answer, stop asking that question it's been answered a million times to you moron creationists.
Reasonwillwin 2 months ago
@leftpuman
Mutations add genetic information all the time. Theres your answer.
Next question please.
tkubok 2 months ago
@tkubok not only do mutations not add genetic information, DNA actually has self-repairing properties to stop and reverse mutations. sir, evolution by mutating cells is a laughable hypothesis. i promise u i mean no disrespect, but abiogenesis and a common ancestor are totally unfounded, faith-based theories by men who presuppose that there is not a God. tell me something, do u know that there is no Creator? and if so, how? thx
leftpuman 2 months ago
@leftpuman
DNA has self repairing properties, but these properties fail on occasion as well. The human Zygote undergoes an average 64 mutations, and each generation undergoes anywhere from 1.6 to 175 mutations. What do you think down syndrome is?
Mutations add genetic information. Since the genome is only made up of 4 base pairs, mutations can increase the genome length and subsequently add information via a mechanism called Insertion mutations.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Evolution.
tkubok 2 months ago
@leftpuman
I never said that there is no creator, or no God. I dont believe in God, or a creator, because the claim that a God exists has not met its burden of proof. Just like i dont believe in Faeries, because there is no evidence, and no one has provided any evidence that Faeries exist.
Next question please.
tkubok 2 months ago
@tkubok what would it take for u to believe that the God of the Bible exists? what is the 'burden of proof'?
leftpuman 2 months ago
@leftpuman
A logical syllogism that is both valid and sound would be enough for me. But, i suppose, the easiest thing that God could do to convince me he exists, is if he simply showed himself to me, in person.
Burden of proof is something that lies on the person who makes a claim. In this case, it is "God exists". If you make that claim, you have the burden of proof, and have to provide evidence to show that God exists. If you fail to provide evidence, my disbelief is justified.
tkubok 2 months ago
@tkubok i would disagree that the burden of proof is on me. if you believe that humans came from non-humans then the burden of proof is on you because what you are saying is something that nobody has ever seen and it goes against everything we know about procreation. when it is theory against fact, the burden of proof is on theory.
leftpuman 2 months ago
@leftpuman
Im talking about the Burden of Proof in regards to whether God exists or not. I was not talking about Evolution. Please read my comments carefully.
Yes, the burden of proof is on me to show that humans came from non-humans. But the burden of proof that a God exists, is on you.
And no, we know that change occurs, that physical changes occur, and that physical changes stack. This is a fact. How does this fact go against the theory? Please explain.
tkubok 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tkubok it is either God OR evolution, thats it. there is no 3rd option, if i have a ball in one of my hands, you dont have to find the hand with the ball in it to prove which is the correct hand, if u find one without the ball you have by default discovered which hand the ball is in. by disproving evolution, creation is proved. by disproving creation, evolution is proved. it is creation or evolution, that's it
leftpuman 2 months ago
why does kent always nail them down arguments. He is well composed unlike all evolutionist in debates! thats a FACT!
The86cali 2 months ago
Nice ad hominem on this comment page. The art of terrible debating 101, Appeal to authority, appeal to majority opinion, appeal to emotion, Ad hominem, claim assertion of fallacy without supporting evidences.
Good job guys, keep up the high level of terrible debating.
HebrewTiger 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Darwin’s idea has been an unmitigated failure from the start. Darwinist biology is perhaps the only major scientific theory which has subsisted in an unbroken state of crisis since its inception. I contend, in fact, that the Darwinian model has proved worthless as a biological paradigm, which is to say that Darwinism is not truly a scientific theory, but indeed an ideological postulate masquerading in scientific garb."
Entropy56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:01:00 God made each "copy" being poorer than the previous, so it's poor design :DD
australapithecines are clearly less complex then modern homosapiens
sidfuckcheese4 3 months ago
Haha, Hovind is an idiot. :D
Task5003 3 months ago
Comment removed
Task5003 3 months ago
The only reason Shermer didn't embarass hovind was becuase there simply was not enough time to reute all his ridiculous and unfounded claims...that he just spews out at a mile per minute....I mean how could u debate someone who just lists off unfounded assertions and out right lies.bare in mind the man is also a conspiracy theorist..not just a creationist... he actually believes the WTC and OKC bombing were government plots..as well as the onset of every american war.
itsgottaBonChannel3 3 months ago