I wonder how many people that claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old have ever even heard of the FIFTY-THOUSAND YEAR history of the Australian Aboriginals, which destroys this silliness in an instant. Where were the Aborigines for the first 44,000 years - on a spaceship? Btw: This guy is IN JAIL FOR TAX FRAUD AND IS THEREFORE A CONVICTED CRIMINAL. I wouldn't trust this clown with a wooden nickel.
@PaulKJHarris Which is more reliable, a document (The Bible) with more historical support far and above any other historical document in existence, or a backwards primitive society with oral traditions? Hmm! I think I will go with the Bible! Also, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Everyone screws up, I looked at his case, his ministry was cheated by not being allowed a 501c3 tax exempt status, technically he was right legally and morally. But we are give Cesar what is Cesar...
Kent Hovind's doctorate was in "Christian Education" from the Patriot Bible University which is not accredited by any agency. He has no scientific qualifications, he says he taught science. His dissertation has no title, no TOC, outlines 16 chapters but contains only 4, has no bibliography, and is full of errors such as "geological epic" for "geological epoch", and "centrifical force" for "centrifugal force". It contains no original research, the basis on which a PhD is supposed to be awarded.
This lunatic is lacking in even the most basic knowledge of rudimentary science! The whole ladder thing....it is IMPOSSIBLE to match up the DNA strands of two different people. You could only do that with a clone of YOURSELF. That is NOT how reproduction occurs. This man would fail the "science" course that he claimed to teach for 15 years. PLEASE get your information somewhere else....
I think I"ve made this erratum statement in previous videos, but the rung of the ladder is simply a dinucleotide bond, not a gene. The gene is a portion of the ladder. A better analogy would be on an extending ladder, perhaps each sliding portion could represent a gene with its homologus pair being the other side of the ladder.
Hey Kent, that littl' guess Darwin had? It's called a hypothesis, you should try it one time, they help you "test thingies", and prove something right (or wrong oc) . That's a lot better than your ridiculing others which seems the only thing you're good at to prove a point. Everybody can do that, here look: "Kent hovind was wrong, because, he's a fraud and is in prison! and if you're in prison you're a bad man, and you're wrong". Wow tight reasoning huh?!
@MentorOfMinos No I just used the same reasoning as Kent, he makes a bold statement which is evidently false, then he says someone (other scientists) were stupid enough to say such a thing(like we came from rock, WTF? there is no scientist who believes that), then he says something a little less stupid --his visions-- which are better than the other scientists' thus kent is right.
Well, ridiculing others doesn't make your point stronger.
As is almost always the case with a message of truth, scoffers have an undeniable instinct to attack the messenger with complete disregard for the point of the message.
It doesn't matter what Kent Hovind did, and that's primarily because his message has nothing to do with tax evasion. His goal was and I'm sure still is to get people saved, and what is the harm in that? If you don't want to accept anything he says, then don't. That's your choice.
"It doesn't matter what Kent Hovind did" Your Bible says otherwise. Jesus says that teachers are to be judged by their fruit. Conviction on 50 separate felonies indicates bad fruit, to me. Also his constant lies, his claims of being a scientist, etc. People who claim to embrace the teachings in a book would do well to become familiar with the book. I could amend my assertion: People who attack evolution know nothing about evolution and, usually, damned little about the Bible!
My point is still valid, regardless of what Kent Hovind did, or what the bible teaches about that. You are simply ignoring his message, based solely on his personal stature and using his faults as a ploy to ignore how idiotic evolution really is.
The message of creation is incorrect and harmful? Maybe you haven't noticed, or maybe you're too comfortable with brainwashing provided to you by the state, but the teaching of evolution influences all who hear it that they are in fact savage, worthless animals. Yes, teaching people that we have a creator and we should do good deeds while we are on Earth is obviously a harmful message. Shame on us evil Christians.
And yet again, you rely on insulting Kent Hovind to try and prove your point.
Try reading the bible to which the title of "scholar" has obviously been earned in your case. Your sins do not magically "disappear" by praying, and that is oversimplifying and severely distorting scripture to pretend that the bible makes that claim at all.
Although creationism does not reduce scientific knowledge, or drag it into the bronze age... I would expect a misinformed comment like that from an evolutionist anyways.
Continue being childish if you want... I'm done with you.
"Evolution provides the basis for rational morality. "
LOL
So, you mean to tell me that a teaching that states that we are all made of random chemicals and there is no ultimate purpose to life and no judgment for our deeds in the end is the basis for rational mortality? Really think about what you just said.
If there is no God, and no real purpose to life in the end... why be moral at all? Let's all have endless orgies, cheat and kill each other and not care! YAY!
If those are the kind of things you'd like to do, and if you're refraining because of fear of future judgement, I am truly sorry for you. The way evolution works is this: That which enhances survival and reproduction is preserved and passed on to the next generation. Humans, being poorly equipped for the competition of tooth and fang, rely on things like co-operation and reciprocity for stability. And that is the basis of morality. It's not rocket science. But it IS science.
@Imaginefree69 Evolution doesn't work. To wit: nothing new at all since the hodge-podge "theory" was first dreamt up. Not a single new feature, not a single new chemical, not a single new biological process. But you just explain it all away with "biiiillions of years" and "we haven't had enough time to see it". Ok, so wait 1,000,000,000 years and then teach it once you have observed a new species evolving. THEN you can ask for my tax money to teach it to other people.
@MentorOfMinos You display an enormous amount of ignorance. Why is it that you are so resistant to education? (well, okay, I know the answer to that) We've seen LOTS of new things, just in our lifetimes; Do you know why no vaccine has been developed for use against HIV? I'll tell you- it's because the virus evolves too quickly! Speaking of waiting long enough: Jesus said he would return in his kingdom whilst some in his audience still lived. Met any 2,000-year-old disciples lately?
This last guy is dumb, what part of "fallen creation" doesnt he understand plus God doesnt want us to be like mindless robots, he lets us make our own decision but the Bible says not even the leaf falls without his permission, he wont allow certain things to happen and he will others wether we understand it or not.
I perfectly understand reasoning but first you and the other guy are claiming if there was a God he would destory evil and since he hasnt there is none but if evolution is true there is no absolute truth so there is no such thing as evil, its clear you havent read the book of Revelation because it tells us God is both willing and able to destroy evil and its happening soon so I advise you get on his side if you wanna win the war...2012 Lol!
@RudySpinolol about the leaves ....smh without His permission ...he is just unbelievable... to imagine the ends of our universe ....how big that is and he mended it with His hands ....smh...what in the * * was lucifer thinking -_-
It seems you are assuming God uses our evolution-based classification system to God if its made for flight its a bird, to us if it flies with feathers and a beak its a bird and look at a fly closley and you will notice it rubbing its front limbs together, looks to me like it has 4 legs and 2 hands, just like the praying mantis and plants and animals were made after man IN THE GARDEN! (drop it already) and how do you know it refered to jesus inmediate audience, does he not have followers today?
"if its made for flight its a bird" You cannot change the definitions. Bats don't have beaks. "Drop it already"? Does that mean that you are putting different rules for you than for me in our conversation? Very religious, indeed. And the question is not how a fly "looks to you", but facts and truth. And if you'll READ the book you'll make fewer absurd assumptions: Luke 9:27 'I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.."
Before I respond I would like to know what Bible version you are using because many have taken out over 200 versions and some have perverted some parts and given verses entirely different meanings.
"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything -- anything -- be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in."
Hovind is a convicted liar and fraud artist in prison after being found guilty on 58 counts in 2006. When a man tries to replace science in our schools with a book that cannot correctly tell the number of legs on an insect it's time for all rational people to speak out. Humans are facing genuine, serious problems. Problems that will not be solved by folding our hands in prayer and hoping some fictitious literary character will swoop down soon and rescue us!
He never tried to replace "evolution". He merely tried to expose that BULLSHIT theory for what it really is - an absolute, 100% lie for brainwashed imbeciles who believe everything they're told. The sort who despise even the concept of a God who will judge them for their worthless, immoral existence.
I don't know why I'm posting this. You'll simply respond with some incoherently slurred span of cliche, run-on sentences citing my ignorance to your so-called "rationale".
As I said, a cliche response. You incorrectly assume that I have not studied evolution. First off, I had the theory crammed down my throat all throughout school as a kid, and I have studied it extensively as an adult, due to my brainwashed sister trying to push it off on me. She says the same thing you do; "You don't understand what evolution teaches!"
When it comes down to it, in spite of any argument-dodging details, evolution teaches that we ultimately came from literally nothing.
Are you truly this ignorant? Try and think before spewing your blasphemous sentences. Evolution would inevitably HAVE to have a beginning, correct? Obiously.
Evolution had to have gotten started somehow at some point. The only alternative to God created everything is that everything either, created itself... or has always existed with no possible physical explanation.
Therefore, evolution would undoubtedly claim that we came from NOTHING.
So everything from data, to data analysis, to peer review is always consistent with the Bible?
If creationism were real, then 100% of its experiments would work, with a P-value of zero, and a correlation coefficient of exactly 1.00 every single time.
First of all, a banana isn't enough scientific evidence. Secondly, not all science is consistent with the Bible. That should tell you something.
Yes, absolutely. I understand that certain stories in the bible cannot be proven, since they were not observed, by us anyway. But the concept of creationism and a literal 6 day creation is scientifically supported 100% I'd really like to hear your objections to it.
The universe was created and then finally man, if you read carefully you'll see that after the Creation God went to the Garden and created plants to "furnish" the garden and some more animals after Adam for him to name, afterwards God created Eve, man and woman were made a few hours apart and in between Adam named the different kinds of animals that God placed in the garden.
Do you ever READ the Bible before criticizing it? I guess not. lol
Rudy Your insults are neither here nor there. I won't bother responding to them. Let's, look at the sequence: Chaper 2 v7- Adam created v8,9- plants and trees created v18, 19- the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed EVERY beast of the field v20- but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him v21, 22 the LORD God ...took one of his ribs.. and made he a woman
part two If you'll look at verse 5 you'll see that there were no plants "in the earth," not merely "in the garden." Verse 19 says "EVERY beast," not merely "some more animals." As you deny evolutionary changes, this means that Adam had to name EVERY BEAST on earth. Surely this must have taken quite a while. Adding your own words to the account in the book invalidates your arguments. That works fine among your co-religionists, but won't fly in any scientific discussion.
It still refers to the garden by "in the earth," not the whole world and by "some more animals." I dont mean random creatures I mean at least 1 of every "kind" as for me denying evolution well... depends on what you mean are you refering to macro evolution (one kind to giving birth to another) or simple variation within the genetic limits of the kind? I am not adding my own words did Jesus not say "study the scriptures" and animal naming can be acomplished quickly in the pre-flood world.
I mean Biblical kinds, I dont think anyone has given a concrete scientific definition of "kind" but from the Bible we can tell that if they can bring forth they are the same kind for sure. Example: get a horse and a zebra and then a crocaodile and an alligator then stand back and look at em' theyre the same kind.
@liltschirhart One comment can't do justice, but I'll speak on one thing that proves creation. DNA is information, information only comes from mind. Especially when you look at the meta information in the genome, which is information about information. 97% of the genome is meta information on how to use the other 3%. So according to all observable data, and common sense I might add, do instructions come from? Do you think the instructions to bake a cake could come about by chance?
@micah1116 So, let me get this straight...because there are instructions in DNA, that proves selective design, because the instructions could not just appear there by chance? And evolution is purely based off of chance?
@micah1116 Cake instructions resulted from trial & error method by humans, looking for which way was best, which is what nature does by reducing alleles which make an organism less likely to survive. This is exactly what people did. They changed ingredients over time to make it better. So your cake example actually supports evolution. The instructions started out one way, & changed over time to improve the cake. Genes of same-species organisms of vary greatly, the cake instructions don't.
@liltschirhart You didn't answer the question, the instructions for baking cake, came from humans(intelligence). How does changing allele frequency cause evolution? It doesn't. Changing the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed doesn't change the morphological structures of the organism, so how could this turn a fish into an ampbibian tetrapod? You need to do some more research in gene expression and basic critical thinking.
@micah1116 I was merely responding to your example of the instructions for baking a cake. Natural selection, of course does not cause evolution. It is merely one of the many factors which have a role in evolution. Natural selection, like I said, just disproves your assertion that something intelligent has set in stone the instructions for "creating" organisms. If that were so, there would be no change at all.
@liltschirhart Ofcourse natural selection doesn't cause evolution, nothing does, it doesn't happen. Life was created. Mutations are mistakes, they aren't evolutionary change. Before the fall of man, there weren't any mutations and there were no mistakes. Show me an example where mutation has caused morphological change to an organism. You totally avoided my question because you know your wrong, and yet you will still deny the existence of God.
Threats dont scare me, I've debated hardcore science enthusiats and this one guy who thought he was all that because he has a phd and masters degree and yet he believed the grand canyon was made by the river when its geologically impossible and Ive left em stumped so a pathetic graduate student is easy mode for me, simple big bang question: what exploded?...
The top of grand canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by over 4000 feet, rivers dont flow uphill, that river did NOT make that canyon also if it had there would be erosion marks between the layers in the "millions of years" of its formation so it is evident they were deposited quickly and by much water (like the flood maybe.)
I wonder how many people that claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old have ever even heard of the FIFTY-THOUSAND YEAR history of the Australian Aboriginals, which destroys this silliness in an instant. Where were the Aborigines for the first 44,000 years - on a spaceship? Btw: This guy is IN JAIL FOR TAX FRAUD AND IS THEREFORE A CONVICTED CRIMINAL. I wouldn't trust this clown with a wooden nickel.
PaulKJHarris 9 months ago
@PaulKJHarris Which is more reliable, a document (The Bible) with more historical support far and above any other historical document in existence, or a backwards primitive society with oral traditions? Hmm! I think I will go with the Bible! Also, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Everyone screws up, I looked at his case, his ministry was cheated by not being allowed a 501c3 tax exempt status, technically he was right legally and morally. But we are give Cesar what is Cesar...
Devin82m 4 months ago in playlist kent hovind CSE 103
Kent Hovind's doctorate was in "Christian Education" from the Patriot Bible University which is not accredited by any agency. He has no scientific qualifications, he says he taught science. His dissertation has no title, no TOC, outlines 16 chapters but contains only 4, has no bibliography, and is full of errors such as "geological epic" for "geological epoch", and "centrifical force" for "centrifugal force". It contains no original research, the basis on which a PhD is supposed to be awarded.
gregrutz 1 year ago
i can't wait for them to create life in the lab so they can show how life was created by intelligence and shoot themselves in the foot
krownzera 1 year ago
This lunatic is lacking in even the most basic knowledge of rudimentary science! The whole ladder thing....it is IMPOSSIBLE to match up the DNA strands of two different people. You could only do that with a clone of YOURSELF. That is NOT how reproduction occurs. This man would fail the "science" course that he claimed to teach for 15 years. PLEASE get your information somewhere else....
liltschirhart 1 year ago
Comment removed
liltschirhart 1 year ago
Yes Kent, The DNA nested hierardhy matches Darwin's tree of life, proof of evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
the 7 dislikes were the 7 deadly sins.
RudySpino 1 year ago
DNA does not prove evolution, the markes on DNA show a tree of life, it matches Darwin's tree of life. Proof.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, DNA Proves evolution happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I think I"ve made this erratum statement in previous videos, but the rung of the ladder is simply a dinucleotide bond, not a gene. The gene is a portion of the ladder. A better analogy would be on an extending ladder, perhaps each sliding portion could represent a gene with its homologus pair being the other side of the ladder.
MentorOfMinos 1 year ago
Hey Kent, that littl' guess Darwin had? It's called a hypothesis, you should try it one time, they help you "test thingies", and prove something right (or wrong oc) . That's a lot better than your ridiculing others which seems the only thing you're good at to prove a point. Everybody can do that, here look: "Kent hovind was wrong, because, he's a fraud and is in prison! and if you're in prison you're a bad man, and you're wrong". Wow tight reasoning huh?!
ytdlgandalf 1 year ago
@ytdlgandalf You're silly.
MentorOfMinos 1 year ago
@MentorOfMinos No I just used the same reasoning as Kent, he makes a bold statement which is evidently false, then he says someone (other scientists) were stupid enough to say such a thing(like we came from rock, WTF? there is no scientist who believes that), then he says something a little less stupid --his visions-- which are better than the other scientists' thus kent is right.
Well, ridiculing others doesn't make your point stronger.
ytdlgandalf 1 year ago
As is almost always the case with a message of truth, scoffers have an undeniable instinct to attack the messenger with complete disregard for the point of the message.
It doesn't matter what Kent Hovind did, and that's primarily because his message has nothing to do with tax evasion. His goal was and I'm sure still is to get people saved, and what is the harm in that? If you don't want to accept anything he says, then don't. That's your choice.
Recoil816 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
My point is still valid, regardless of what Kent Hovind did, or what the bible teaches about that. You are simply ignoring his message, based solely on his personal stature and using his faults as a ploy to ignore how idiotic evolution really is.
Recoil816 2 years ago
"You are simply ignoring his message.."
Pay attention, Recoil.
I am OPPOSING his message
based on the fact that it is incorrect and harmful.
His lies and ignorance and criminal behaviour
simply provide valid and even scriptural ammunition
with which to resist the tyranny of religious lies.
By embracing the teaching of an evil-fruited teacher
you are dismissing and violating the teaching of Jesus,
which is quite silly and hypocritical.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
The message of creation is incorrect and harmful? Maybe you haven't noticed, or maybe you're too comfortable with brainwashing provided to you by the state, but the teaching of evolution influences all who hear it that they are in fact savage, worthless animals. Yes, teaching people that we have a creator and we should do good deeds while we are on Earth is obviously a harmful message. Shame on us evil Christians.
And yet again, you rely on insulting Kent Hovind to try and prove your point.
Recoil816 2 years ago
"evolution influences all who hear it that they are in fact savage, worthless animals"
No, but the Christian message says
that all humans are evil and depraved.
That your sins disappear
when you recite the magical Sinner's Prayer,
so where's the motivation for moral behaviour?
Dragging our science classes back into the bronze age
is counterproductive for everyone.
Evolution provides the basis for rational morality.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Try reading the bible to which the title of "scholar" has obviously been earned in your case. Your sins do not magically "disappear" by praying, and that is oversimplifying and severely distorting scripture to pretend that the bible makes that claim at all.
Although creationism does not reduce scientific knowledge, or drag it into the bronze age... I would expect a misinformed comment like that from an evolutionist anyways.
Continue being childish if you want... I'm done with you.
Recoil816 2 years ago
"creationism does not reduce scientific knowledge, or drag it into the bronze age"
Sure it does.
It replaces scientific inquiry and experiment and verification with the superstitious chant of primitive man:
"We don't understand it, that proves God did it."
You can't feed the world or clean up the earth
or build a better mousetrap with that attitude.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Although, wait...
"Evolution provides the basis for rational morality. "
LOL
So, you mean to tell me that a teaching that states that we are all made of random chemicals and there is no ultimate purpose to life and no judgment for our deeds in the end is the basis for rational mortality? Really think about what you just said.
If there is no God, and no real purpose to life in the end... why be moral at all? Let's all have endless orgies, cheat and kill each other and not care! YAY!
Recoil816 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
@Imaginefree69 Evolution doesn't work. To wit: nothing new at all since the hodge-podge "theory" was first dreamt up. Not a single new feature, not a single new chemical, not a single new biological process. But you just explain it all away with "biiiillions of years" and "we haven't had enough time to see it". Ok, so wait 1,000,000,000 years and then teach it once you have observed a new species evolving. THEN you can ask for my tax money to teach it to other people.
MentorOfMinos 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@MentorOfMinos ''Not a single new feature''
Everything you think of as bird-like, dinosaurs evolved: hollow bones, feathers, oval eggs in nests, three toes, warm blood, etc.
gregrutz 1 year ago
You would think people would at least wait
until Hovind gets out of prison
before quoting this convicted fraud artist
as a source of "truth."
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
This last guy is dumb, what part of "fallen creation" doesnt he understand plus God doesnt want us to be like mindless robots, he lets us make our own decision but the Bible says not even the leaf falls without his permission, he wont allow certain things to happen and he will others wether we understand it or not.
RudySpino 2 years ago 3
@RudySpino
What part of logic and reasoning don't you understand??
TobiasMathe7 2 years ago
I perfectly understand reasoning but first you and the other guy are claiming if there was a God he would destory evil and since he hasnt there is none but if evolution is true there is no absolute truth so there is no such thing as evil, its clear you havent read the book of Revelation because it tells us God is both willing and able to destroy evil and its happening soon so I advise you get on his side if you wanna win the war...2012 Lol!
RudySpino 2 years ago
@RudySpino it says sparrow, not leaf genius.
jamie7756 1 year ago
@RudySpino that is awesome ! :D God is ... just wow
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 Thanx, do you mean my 7 sins comment or the one about the fallen creation?
RudySpino 1 year ago
@RudySpinolol about the leaves ....smh without His permission ...he is just unbelievable... to imagine the ends of our universe ....how big that is and he mended it with His hands ....smh...what in the * * was lucifer thinking -_-
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
@CheyennedeLuna77 I really don't know what he was thinking.
You gotta be pretty stupid try that.
RudySpino 1 year ago
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
keyboardplaya 2 years ago
God is BOTH willing and able and he tells us in the Bible he's going to destroy evil soon.
RudySpino 2 years ago
"he tells us in the Bible..."
Yes, well, he also tells us that bats are birds,
that insects have 4 legs,
that man was made before plants and animals,
and that the Kingdom of God would reign on earth
before all of Jesus' audience had died.
Those guys are getting pretty elderly, eh?
No, no, we won't get too excited
about any predictions from THAT book.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
It seems you are assuming God uses our evolution-based classification system to God if its made for flight its a bird, to us if it flies with feathers and a beak its a bird and look at a fly closley and you will notice it rubbing its front limbs together, looks to me like it has 4 legs and 2 hands, just like the praying mantis and plants and animals were made after man IN THE GARDEN! (drop it already) and how do you know it refered to jesus inmediate audience, does he not have followers today?
RudySpino 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Before I respond I would like to know what Bible version you are using because many have taken out over 200 versions and some have perverted some parts and given verses entirely different meanings.
RudySpino 2 years ago
"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything -- anything -- be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in."
— Sam Harris, The End of Faith
keyboardplaya 2 years ago
If God made the world in 6 days, then he didn't really give a shit how it ended up.
keyboardplaya 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
He never tried to replace "evolution". He merely tried to expose that BULLSHIT theory for what it really is - an absolute, 100% lie for brainwashed imbeciles who believe everything they're told. The sort who despise even the concept of a God who will judge them for their worthless, immoral existence.
I don't know why I'm posting this. You'll simply respond with some incoherently slurred span of cliche, run-on sentences citing my ignorance to your so-called "rationale".
Have at you.
Recoil816 2 years ago
Like I keep saying,
only those who have not studied evolutionary theory attack it.
Those who understand it
also understand that it is no threat to god, home, or country.
But it's really foolish to get your information
from a proven, convicted, known fraud and liar.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
As I said, a cliche response. You incorrectly assume that I have not studied evolution. First off, I had the theory crammed down my throat all throughout school as a kid, and I have studied it extensively as an adult, due to my brainwashed sister trying to push it off on me. She says the same thing you do; "You don't understand what evolution teaches!"
When it comes down to it, in spite of any argument-dodging details, evolution teaches that we ultimately came from literally nothing.
Recoil816 2 years ago
"evolution teaches that we ultimately came from literally nothing."
Thereby demonstrating for all that your sister,
who obviously knows you well,
is quite right.
Evolution has NOTHING to say about "life from nothing."
My assertion is once again verified:
Those who attack evolution
do not understand it.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Are you truly this ignorant? Try and think before spewing your blasphemous sentences. Evolution would inevitably HAVE to have a beginning, correct? Obiously.
Evolution had to have gotten started somehow at some point. The only alternative to God created everything is that everything either, created itself... or has always existed with no possible physical explanation.
Therefore, evolution would undoubtedly claim that we came from NOTHING.
Try again, genius.
Recoil816 2 years ago
Crick and WATSON!!! He forgot Watson?
prichard8788 3 years ago
Honestly, Hovind has a very poor understanding of genetics. This is kind of sad to watch. Talk about the blind leading the blind.
prichard8788 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, people believe in creationism because ONE book tells them to?
keyboardplaya 3 years ago
No, because ALL scientific evidence points towards it.
micah1116 2 years ago 2
So everything from data, to data analysis, to peer review is always consistent with the Bible?
If creationism were real, then 100% of its experiments would work, with a P-value of zero, and a correlation coefficient of exactly 1.00 every single time.
First of all, a banana isn't enough scientific evidence. Secondly, not all science is consistent with the Bible. That should tell you something.
keyboardplaya 2 years ago
Yes, absolutely. I understand that certain stories in the bible cannot be proven, since they were not observed, by us anyway. But the concept of creationism and a literal 6 day creation is scientifically supported 100% I'd really like to hear your objections to it.
micah1116 2 years ago 3
"a literal 6 day creation is scientifically supported 100%"
Which one?
The man-trees-animals-woman sequence in Genesis 2
or the tree-animals-human sequence in chapter 1?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
The chapter 1 Creation describes THE Creation of the universe the chapter 2 sequence describes what happened IN THE GARDEN ONLY!
RudySpino 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The chapter 1 Creation describes THE Creation of the universe the chapter 2 sequence describes what happened IN THE GARDEN ONLY!"
I see.
So in "the universe"
man and woman were created together,
after the animals
but in "the garden" the sequence was
man, then animals, then woman.
Wow, that explains everything...
Do you ever read your comments before posting them?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Wow I never thought you were so stupid?!
The universe was created and then finally man, if you read carefully you'll see that after the Creation God went to the Garden and created plants to "furnish" the garden and some more animals after Adam for him to name, afterwards God created Eve, man and woman were made a few hours apart and in between Adam named the different kinds of animals that God placed in the garden.
Do you ever READ the Bible before criticizing it? I guess not. lol
RudySpino 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
It still refers to the garden by "in the earth," not the whole world and by "some more animals." I dont mean random creatures I mean at least 1 of every "kind" as for me denying evolution well... depends on what you mean are you refering to macro evolution (one kind to giving birth to another) or simple variation within the genetic limits of the kind? I am not adding my own words did Jesus not say "study the scriptures" and animal naming can be acomplished quickly in the pre-flood world.
RudySpino 2 years ago
1 of every kind?
What do you mean-
one bird, one mammal, one reptile, etc?
The book says "EVERY beast."
Rewriting the book is not legitimate discussion.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
I mean Biblical kinds, I dont think anyone has given a concrete scientific definition of "kind" but from the Bible we can tell that if they can bring forth they are the same kind for sure. Example: get a horse and a zebra and then a crocaodile and an alligator then stand back and look at em' theyre the same kind.
RudySpino 2 years ago
"I mean Biblical kinds"
You seem to be making up your own definitions.
Which certainly simplifies the arguments!
As for the version...
the only accurate ones are Young's Literal and the Concordant,
but even they are based on copies of copies of copies
of manuscripts written in dead languages.
It doesn't really matter, it's all myth anyway.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just so you know My names not Rudy,
v7- Adam created
v8,9- plants and trees created
v18, 19- the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed EVERY beast of the field
v20- but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him
v21, 22 the LORD God ...took one of his ribs.. and made he a woman
I told you thats the garden only!
And it goes in perfect sequence with what I said.
RudySpino 2 years ago
@micah1116 Geology proves there was no global flood, the bible is scientificlly proven wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@micah1116 I'd like to hear your evidence for it broski.
liltschirhart 1 year ago
@liltschirhart One comment can't do justice, but I'll speak on one thing that proves creation. DNA is information, information only comes from mind. Especially when you look at the meta information in the genome, which is information about information. 97% of the genome is meta information on how to use the other 3%. So according to all observable data, and common sense I might add, do instructions come from? Do you think the instructions to bake a cake could come about by chance?
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 So, let me get this straight...because there are instructions in DNA, that proves selective design, because the instructions could not just appear there by chance? And evolution is purely based off of chance?
liltschirhart 1 year ago
@liltschirhart Yes it proves design. Do you think the instructions for baking a cake could come from nature?
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 Cake instructions resulted from trial & error method by humans, looking for which way was best, which is what nature does by reducing alleles which make an organism less likely to survive. This is exactly what people did. They changed ingredients over time to make it better. So your cake example actually supports evolution. The instructions started out one way, & changed over time to improve the cake. Genes of same-species organisms of vary greatly, the cake instructions don't.
liltschirhart 1 year ago
@liltschirhart You didn't answer the question, the instructions for baking cake, came from humans(intelligence). How does changing allele frequency cause evolution? It doesn't. Changing the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed doesn't change the morphological structures of the organism, so how could this turn a fish into an ampbibian tetrapod? You need to do some more research in gene expression and basic critical thinking.
micah1116 1 year ago
@micah1116 I was merely responding to your example of the instructions for baking a cake. Natural selection, of course does not cause evolution. It is merely one of the many factors which have a role in evolution. Natural selection, like I said, just disproves your assertion that something intelligent has set in stone the instructions for "creating" organisms. If that were so, there would be no change at all.
liltschirhart 1 year ago
@liltschirhart Ofcourse natural selection doesn't cause evolution, nothing does, it doesn't happen. Life was created. Mutations are mistakes, they aren't evolutionary change. Before the fall of man, there weren't any mutations and there were no mistakes. Show me an example where mutation has caused morphological change to an organism. You totally avoided my question because you know your wrong, and yet you will still deny the existence of God.
micah1116 1 year ago 2
Barely ANY science is consistent with Evolution.
RudySpino 2 years ago
Well, I guess we know you didn't get very far in science...
...Oh, and I'm a graduate student by the way, so you wouldn't wanna argue with me.
TobiasMathe7 2 years ago
Threats dont scare me, I've debated hardcore science enthusiats and this one guy who thought he was all that because he has a phd and masters degree and yet he believed the grand canyon was made by the river when its geologically impossible and Ive left em stumped so a pathetic graduate student is easy mode for me, simple big bang question: what exploded?...
RudySpino 2 years ago
"he believed the grand canyon was made by the river when its geologically impossible"
Haha!!
Good one, RS.
Don't hold back, tell us all of your jokes!
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
The top of grand canyon is higher than where the river enters the canyon by over 4000 feet, rivers dont flow uphill, that river did NOT make that canyon also if it had there would be erosion marks between the layers in the "millions of years" of its formation so it is evident they were deposited quickly and by much water (like the flood maybe.)
RudySpino 2 years ago
I'm sure DNA evolved by accident... LOL
W1930U7 3 years ago
FreeHovind(dot)com?
ROFL!!!
MankindAscendant 4 years ago