Creation Science Evangelism - Kent Hovind - 2007 Seminar 7-2 - Question and Answer

[gregrutz]

Reptiles came form amphibians. I suppose you can't figure out where they came from either.

[Hollenthon2468]

If I were you all Hovind followers, I would really question what Hovind's been teaching. Seriously, a creationist leader who refused to pay taxes to his society deserves to be mulitple examined. Just like how Martin Luther has alot of followers (Lutherans/Protestants), but at the same time he himself was anti-Judaism who suggested that burning down synogogues and depriving Jews of their religion is a "good thing". You all gotta examin what you believe and who you follow.

[ikawpipa]

Hovind's lecture and scientific facts should be taught around the world.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa Hovind denys the ''scientific facts''

''Fossils prove nothing'' is not the way to teach Paleontology.

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - Hovind is saying: Fossils prove something died. Fossils can't be use to prove evolution.. how can you make a history from a fossil? try this experiment at home.. when you eat a chicken, make a family tree from the bone and his ancestors and from what did the chicken evolved from.... you will notice that it is NOT scientific and just your imagination and fairytale to create a story from a bone.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa Hovind says ''Fossils only prove something died.'' That is wrong. Fossils prove something lived in the past, [a breeding population, there was never one of any species. So if it had kids or not does not matter, breeding population evolve] Fossils prove life was different in the past. Fossils prove most of the species that ever lived are extinct. Fossils show life becoming more complex over time. There is a whole field of Science called Paleontology he just brushes off.

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - the fossils are real but the story behind the fossils are pure imagination and a fairy-tale.. you are welcome to believe the story but that is NOT science. how can someone say this fossil is the ancestor of elephants or giraffes, that's baloney.. Everyone is entitled to believe their Religion of Evolution, Christianity or Islam etc.. but that is NOT science.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa How would you know, you have never opened a science book. The first mammal was the ancestor of elephants and giraffes, both.

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - where did the first mammal come from? .. a rock? ... you are free to believe that but it is NOT science... you can use your imagination and creativity as far as you like but you just stepped out of science.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa No, Hovind brainwashed again. Mammals evolved from reptiles, they have the fossils showing it.

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - really? where did the reptiles come from? .. where is the starting point of evolution ? can you fill in the blank for me:

Humans came from _____________

goodluck !

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa Pick one...Eosimias sinensis, the Aegyptopithecus zeuxis, Proconsul africanus, Afropithecus turkanensis, Turkanapithecus kalakolensis, Sivapithecus indicus, hecus bambolii, Lufengpithecus lufengensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, lopithecus africanus, Paranthropus aethiopicus, Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis.

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - which one has a proof and evidence? -- the one changing to humans step by step and not purely imagination and creativity which is pure Fairy-tale.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN ANY FOSSIL !

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - scientists can explain the fossils BUT NOT the fairy-tales of evolution that another creature is the ancestor of that fossil and this fossil... if you give 5 scientists the same kind of fossils, im sure they will come up with 5 evolution fairy-tales and relgion based on faith and strong belief that it happened billions of billions of years ago.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa Most life evolved in the last 530 million years, not billions of billions. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

When you look at the fossils it is easy to see what evolved from what, it is more complex than they thought. We did not evolve from Neanderthals, DNA proves they were a different kind of human.

[ikawpipa]

@gregrutz - what happened to New Year ?!? we just celebrated it 2 months ago ?!? ... is it counted on your Evolution Time Scale or you are using an Imaginary Evo Time ?!? ...

Until evolution is scientific with facts and evidences, it will remain as a Religion since you have to believe it happened Billionis of Billions of years ago with NO eyewitness.. just pure Imagination and Fairy-tales for grown-ups.

[gregrutz]

@ikawpipa Evolution was proven with all the evidence 150 years ago. Science does not use magic, voodoo or religion.

There was no eyewitness to Jesus raising from the dead, I guess your religion is wrong.

[Inverita1]

How did Hovind miss that a Rhino could be a unicorn? 

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 Because everyone knows unicorns were horses with a horn so they could poke people in the butt.

[Inverita1]

I like how instead of actual refuitations to points in this nearly 3 hour long seminar the haters all resort to vague statments like " Hovind doesn't know science". I've seen him debate many scientists who agreed with his arguments. Other comments like "he is a tax evading fraud".. this may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that he is right about his skeptical criticism on poor science/religion. Please use arguments with addressing issue with Hovinds teaching, not just empty slander.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 " Hovind doesn't know science" means that once you look at the evidence you understand how things work and Hovind does not know how things work.

He quote mines a paper about spinning super nova and thinks the universe is spinning and everything in it should be going the same way for evolution #44 to be true.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz He makes a valid argument. The idea that the universe exploded outward after spinning is something that needs to be addressed. I dont know if it has/hasn't yet, but the argument remains logical. Two opposite rotations cannot be caused by the same force.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 No he does not make a valid argument because the universe is not spinning. The universe did not 'explode'.

A singularity can't spin !

Dumb shit Hovind quote mined from a paper on spinning, exploding super nova.

He has no idea what he is talking about any you worship him like it's the word of god.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz A singularity can't spin? See Kerr-Newman metric for a spinning, charged ring singularity. But lets examine further. The singularity theory breaks the law of energy in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. The universe was all there was compacted so there was no outside force. So it couldnt be a singularity explosion. The next theory was nothing exploded, but energy cannot be created or destroyed, so this theory falls apart too. The universe must be caused.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 A singularity can't spin? NO DUMMY

A singularity is ONE POINT that has no width. It is 1 dimentional, there is nothing to spin.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz The concept of a cingularity as a 1D thing(I dont even know what to call it) goes against what scientists believe the singularity was. It is possible for the singularity to be a ring, in which case it was capable of spinning and in fact is what the models show it doing.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 ''In a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), defined as a "ring singularity". ''

The early universe was a single point not a spinning black hole.

Hovind quote mined from a paper on spinning super nova.

It does not matter because all math breaks down at the sigularity.

The universe is not spinning, you couldn't tell if it was.

The point is Kent can't prove every scientists and dating method in the world wrong.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz Hovind doesn't have to prove every scientist or dating method wrong.. all he needs to do is show where other scientists agree there are complications and inconsistancies and allow people to be more skeptical concerning what is being regarded as accurate dating when it is more far inaccurate than led on.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 ''regarded as accurate dating '' Why is that? Why do all the dating methods agree with each other? Why is it ''regarded as accurate dating '' ???

Why does Geology match Paleontogy match Fossils match Biology? Is it all a big plot or is Hovind's Interpretation of the Bible wrong?

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz I would say it is a plot. They are inventing dates.. they date the fossils based on the rocks and they date the rocks based on the fossils.

For example..

Man 1:this skull is 200 years old because we found it in the rock layer we think is 200 years old.

Man 2: cool, how did you date the rock layer?

Man 1: well we have this 200 year old skull that we found there so we know its 200 years old.

The geologic collumn is fiction. It is inconsistant all over the world!!!!

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 For a 200 years old skull they would date the buildings with tree ring dating which is accurate to within one year.

They date the rock layers with the oldest on the bottom, younger on top.

You and Hovind don't know he difference between the geologic time scale in the books and the layers of rock under your feet.

Yes the layers are different all over the world, if they were laid down by a global flood they would all be the same and the fossils mixed up.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz If laid down by a global flood we would expect what we see now.. that currents moving rocks/ life/ and debris over a 13 month period would put thing into different sedimentary layers. We'd also find trees going through the layers and animals going through the layers... all observable/testable and exactly what we see with Polystrate Fossils.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 Wrong, that is not what we find. Not all layers are laid down by water.

Try again.

Floods don't make different kinds of rock.

You can't accout for unconformities and the fossils being sorted simple to complex.

Tree go through the layers that were laid down quickly or they would have rotted.

What did they eat when they got off the boat and the world was covered in mud?

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz Floods dont make different kinds of rock, but water can sort different kinds of rock.. and this process would have been continuing on for 13 months and developed many different layers.. Yes, Trees and animals would have to be burried quickly. This is true for any fosssil.

Noah was instructed to bring plants aboard as well. Genesis Chapter 9 talks about Noah replenishing the earth and even planting vinyards. Also, Seeds could have been carried in the flood.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 How does a flood make an ash layer of wind blown sand layerS. How many time do I have to tell you NOT ALL SEDIMENTS ARE FROM WATER !

Limestone is hundreds of feet think and took a long time to lay down.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz

Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed largely of the minerals calcite and aragonite, which are different crystal forms of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Many limestones are composed from skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. (sounds like what one would expect from a worldwide flood)

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz Or limestone could be the result of many animals being washed into a region and piled upon one another with mud and other minerals, which are common to find within sedimentary layers of limestone.

I suggest you read "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael A Cremo

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 Floods don't make distinct layers. watch /watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz I understand, but the alternative layers also don't add much credibility..

"The only way to date a volcanic ash layer using radiocarbon dating is to find ash within a lake sediment or peat layer and then date the organic carbon from above and below it, and therefore fix an age for the ash event." So if the erruption happened simotaneously with say a worldwide cataclysmic event such as a flood depositing other layers, the layers would form at relativly the same time.

[gregrutz]

@Inverita1 They radiometric date ash layers above and below fossils to get a date range. And they don't use Carbon 14.

There was no global flood, the fish would have all died in the muddy water.

[Inverita1]

@gregrutz "You can't accout for unconformities and the fossils being sorted simple to complex." The fossil record isn't sorted simple to complex. There are vertabrits in every layer including precambrian.

You are ignoring all the artifacts found in lower levels. Strange things/tools/trinkets are found all over... look up anachronisms or Out of Place Artifacts. There are many fakes but also some good ones as well.

[ButterOnCorn]

Americans are grossly ignorant of evolution

[Hollenthon2468]

@ButterOnCorn It's wise not to generalize people. This is one American among many. He is ignorant of evolution sure, but at the same time he is anti-evolution. I've seen the same in European countries such as England and the same in Australia. Many groups in different countries around the world. Not just Christian groups, but also Muslim.

[sameer137]

brb jail

[s4m10sug1]

This guy doesn't have the most basic scientific knowledge. He quotes the writings of ignorant bronze age men as proof. He should go back to school. Oh, wait! He's in jail for being a fraud.

[donfanto1]

he never talks about orthodox church. i feel respect to him and I want to know his opinion about the topic

[Crissix100]

he says there's no evidence at all of life on other planets, so he doesn't believe it. then why does he require evidence against creationism in order to not believe it? subtle distinction, but if you think about it, he's picking and choosing here.

[TimothyLeeFunk]

If you dont like kent hovind or creationists maybe dont watch it? I dont like animal abuse therefore I dont search for it... Food for thought

[crazybatcheat]

Kent Hovind! The great tax evader himself! How does anyone take this dude seriously? He's got a fake doctorate (you call yourself "Dr" when you go study your arse off and get a degree, not when you pay for a sketchy degree from a sketchy degree mill). He lied repeatedly to the US govt about his income (I guess "Render unto Caesar" doesn't apply to him?). If you want to actually convince people who know anything about science, don't quote this guy.

[LLThenu]

@crazybatcheat

Reflections And Warnings - An Interview With Aaron Russo

watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ

[icewomen881]

Agreed with every single word thanks for posting :) this man speaks the truth.Evolution is such a fariy tale!!

[wolfpax22]

"The 'god' that would use a process like evolution would be cruel, wasteful, and retarded... It's not in the character of God to use an evil mean process ... where bazillions of animals have to die in order for things to improve." "He gets it right the first time."

Ironically this guy bases his entire viewpoint on Noah's flood...

[KJVWordofGod]

@wolfpax22 No one who died in the flood was human. They were all fallen angel hybrid creatures from angels raping women. Noah was "perfect" in his generations....meaning none of the fallen angels had corrupted his line. See Gen 6. But never mind that for now. Christ died for you. What will you do about that?

[wolfpax22]

@KJVWordofGod Well all that's nice but it misses the point I made, which was that Hovind is critiquing evolution for being wasteful and cruel and requiring mass death to make things better, when creation, as presented by you folks, is essentially just that. It is wasteful for God, who is omnipotent, to create a flawed creation (and if man could fall it is flawed since God is omniscient and knew it would happen) which requires cycles of enormous "wrath" such as the flood to fix it.

[Crissix100]

@wolfpax22 so they're on equal footing in your mind, what is the point?

[wolfpax22]

@Crissix100 Heh no they're not on equal footing in my mind. I was just commenting that in describing what he finds wrong with evolution (wasteful, cruel, etc.) he describes the 'theory' of origins he advocates. Using "He gets it right the first time" is also laughably ironic for someone who bases his entire worldview around Noah's Flood. As for life on other planets, I expect that to be the next 'Galileo/Darwin moment' for these people when it comes. Look forward to accusations of hoaxing.

[Crissix100]

@wolfpax22 Ok I see what you meant , thanks. I agree completely.  What I don't agree with about this whole business is that animals/people having to die is cruel. It's the reality of things; I'll live (hopefully) to my mid 80's and then I'll die, whether I evolved or was created is not a factor in this. Evolution is not cruel because billions of things have to die, if anything that would be time being cruel. I then have to absolve the flood of cruelty, also. Like that actually happened ;)