oh but there is carbon14 in some dinosaur fossils. this poses a problem for you. im sure you and i have talked about this before but i will bring it up again. why is carbon14 found in dinosaur fossils like the one mary schweitzer found in montana, with soft tissue (not biofilm, this has been proven)? please explain this. the presence of dinosaur soft tissue with carbon14 in it proves that the dinosaur is not 30,000 yers old.
i meant to say that it is not more than 30,000 years old, according to john bada at the scripps oceanography institute. certainly no more than 50,000 years old since carbon14 was found in it.
Yes Kent they test a lot of stuff, that is how they know when it works well and like snails, when it does not work. It also cross checks with all the other dating methods that you must also deny work.
Go to the Grand Canyon and then tell me with a straight face, ''the geologic column does not exist''. You are looking at one, the 44 layers of rock below you.
Kent did say the truth once. ''They don't use Carbon 14 to date fossils'', that is because they are too old. They use C14 to date Egyptian sites to 6000 BC, that is why Kent has to prove it wrong. And every scientist in the world wrong.
thats archeology anyway big guy, thats funny science has to change their books every couple of years, the bible never changed. science is compounded theories that are constantly changing. just something that might mess with your head, the bible mentions dinos several times.
@burl101 Science books are updating their theories because scientists keep discovering more facts. We are learning more all the time. The bible doesn't change, it still says the earth is flat and the center of everything.
JOB 40:
15 Behold now behemoth
16 His strength is in his loins and his force is in the navel of his belly.
@gregrutz its an expression. like your loins or bussum. its the center. and i dont know how we know the tissue makeup of something we only found bones for, nevermind prove that it had offspring.
@gregrutz no im not home schooled, i was taught creation in sunday school and evolution in biology class. both religions. im sorry you worship time and matter. the bible states that the world is round. Isaiah 40:22. and how can something be a proven process if it cannot be a proven theory?
@OldaurGold That is why muscle for muscle, bone for bone we are the same as chimps, even 98.6% the same DNA.
And most of the species that ever lived are extinct... no dinos, no neanderthals, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers. Yes they are all unique, how do you explain them?
Scientist have found many of the missing links and 20 different dinosaurs with feathers.
@gregrutz oh yes there have beef found, trilobites and rabbits have been found together i have seen it i will try to find it and i will send it to you.
@ProMajtas You are correct, trilobites did not go extinct. my bad. You won't find bunny fossils in rock so old that trilobites were the most advanced life form at that time in earth's history.
@gregrutz so you're saying that trilobites survived for 500 million years? wow evolution let them survive for that long?????? thank you for proving my point.
@ProMajtas What was your point? Sharks have been around for million of years too, proving Kent wrong. Why do creatards think ''living fossils'' prove anything other than it didn't go extinct.???
I guess that like Kent you don't understand evolution.
@ProMajtas The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon is below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains [tilted], worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?
@gregrutz I think it took couple of weeks. Did you know that rivers flow down hill? Did you know that The top of Grand Canyon is higher than the place where the river enters the canyon?
@ProMajtas Yes Geologists have a problem. Rivers go through mountains all the time, the river was there first. But the GC is a little different. One theory says the river did not start cutting the canyon until 7,000,000 years ago and some scientists think the whole area was raised up 400,000,000 years ago when the Rocky Mountains were uplifted. There is evidence of a lake to the northeast.
@ProMajtas There is a problem. Scientists think the river cut the canyon starting about 6 million years but the whole area was though to have been raised up 400 million years ago when the Rocky Mts. were formed. Why don't you study the problem and tell us your answer. You have been given the facts, you can't chnage them.
@ProMajtas Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. So even though Kent can prove every dating method even invented by anyone wrong, it does not matter.
If Kent found a dinosaur alive it would not prove anything except dinosaurs survived, we know the small ones with feathers did.
Kent does not understand evolution enough to prove it wrong.
@gregrutz How did Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before dating? If you start a topic finish it.How do you know small dinosaurs with feathers did?
@gregrutz well yes if it's dead than i will make the assumption that it used to be alive. dinosaurs with feathers? well if you are talking about the Archaeopteryx than you should know that many ornithologists have agreed that it's just a regular bird.
@gregrutz my previous comment was inaccurate. Many birds today have teeth. Just type on Google birds with teeth. You will find many of them. One more thing. If evolution was true You would be able to find Billions of transitional fossils everywhere in the world. That Archaeopteryx is simply some fossil of some duck. For example greylag goose. Even if evolution is true it is not worth defending at all because it is USELESS.
@Stevoukos right, except the fact that all of mankind uses the Bible as a moral compass, including swearing on it in a court of law. theres people who live to 130 that live in thirrd world countries that dont have healthcare. yea vaccines are great. who would of thought if you exposed yourself to a dead form of every disese in the world your God given immune system would recognize them and fight viruses off.
We have a pretty good understanding of how our immune system evolved to it's present state.
Now if you use the Bible as a "moral code" then you have no morality whatsoever.
If you are standing there not killing people just because the "Bible says so" then you are a very VERY dangerous man.
Finally,I have a 5 year old daughter.What's a good price for her if I go sell her?Your Bible "morality" justifies slavery so I really want to be "moral".
@gregrutz so when exactly did apes decide to stop being apes and start being human, and still be apes? dude your barking up the wrong tree here. this is good christians coming in and putting good words in on science. i love science and it does work well with creation. have fun living for nothing and then rotting in the ground after no one says a prayer to a non-existent God.
@burl101 Why can't you people stay on topic? You start talking about apes, a classification, and change to God. Science does not commet on God, sorry if they keep discovering things that don't match your creation story.
Humans are Mammals, they didn't not stop being mammals when they got big brains and walked upright.
Humans are Primates, they did not stop being primates when they became homo sapians.
@burl101 Darwin is dead, he was wrong about some things, his ideas are 150 years out of date.
So what?
Read a Biology book and try and keep up with Science.
And tell Hovind they don't use Carbon 14 Dating on fossils. They use it on Egyptian artifacts from their farming in 6000 BC. They had many floods and did not all die.
@gregrutz you don't have to school me on classes and phylums and nucleic acids i went to high school just like you where they didn't even give creation a chance. its because theres no money in research in creation. we already know what happened. mane you should listen to people like doctors.
@gregrutz "it also depends on which study you use as to what is our closest relative. If you compare eyes, it is the octopus. If you compare teeth and palates, we are more closely related to orangutans than chimps. If you compare hearts, we are closest to pigs (ever stop to wonder why they are cloning pigs for organ transplants rather than chimps?). Compare cytochrome C and our closest relatives are sunflowers!"
@micah1116 They use known to decay rates (not necessarily carbon) to date the fossils, from there they date the geologic column. It's a shame all the fossils that are dated around the same era using these techniques also are in the same strata in the geologic column. Kind of puts a damper on the whole, "Derp, day were slower, so got buried by da flood earlier" argument.
"when you burn the forests, the trees next door grow faster. so really there is no environmental problem like they would have you believe" lol at that
I don't see what is so bad about what he is presenting. It makes since and anybody who has been brainwashed into believing that there is no way the Dating system of Carbon is flawed or doesn't work will attack these logical ideas.
This isn't the only thing that proves the earth CANT be billions of years old, take a look at population growth recently, Helium content, recent inventions, etc. The earth would be gone by now or at least a LOT different if it were truly 4.5 Billion years old...
Carbon dating isn't flawed, It's limitations were documented decades ago. And your helium content argument was debunked, see "Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996". Of course, you'll just deny it because it doesn't fit the christian worldview. How arrogant.
@ConcealedTruism You clearly don't get your science from any respected authorities and sources. It has long been settled by serious scientists that earth is billions of years old and that the science behind carbon dating and other means of dating is sound. Myth doctors like Hovind can impress the gullible and uneducated - good luck with your delusions and ignorance.
@radioactiveego yeah and im glad,ameirca aint the land of the free,they have carefully turned it into a police state but thats what happens when you have a satanic conspiracy controling america and the world,the whole system is corrupt and there is no actual law so i can kinda see were Kent was coming from.Plus he was right about having to pay taxes to support the evolution theory so they can pretend its fact.
You have no idea about the tax situation here. What happens when you don't pay taxes in England? You'll probably go to jail. What happens when you don't pay taxes in America? You go to jail, like Kent Hovind. You don't live here, so stfu. We have what's called the establishment clause, which is keeping our country out of the hands of the church (thankfully) and religious morons like yourself.
@radioactiveego yeah but you actually dont have to pay income tax in america,there is no actual law.Yes in england you would be in prison but its illegal if america puts you in prison for something they dont even have alwa for.Thats why alot of IRS workers have quite and stoped paying taxes,they say well show me the actual law.LOL you say that but i hear the vatican is running the world so if you think about it your country is still in the hands of the church but from behind the scenes.
You don't pay taxes, you go to jail. You can sit here and argue the laws till your blue in the face, but not paying your taxes (failing to file a return) is against the law and many people have been convicted of it. You are pretty stupid. Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution and the 16th amendment. Ugh. People take advice from this convicted felon? LOL.
see if you have to pay income tax,just because the yanks throw you in prison does not mean they are right,they are corrupt and have the power to throw people in priosn wether or not they are guilty,you cross the line and they can bring you up on false charges.They were very happy to shit kent up because he went against there theory that they want people to take as fact.Its not fact and god is still in the job.
They threw Kent in Jail for 56 counts of tax evasion. Then he was recorded on tape trying to get his son to commit perjury by lying to the government. Kent can't argue where his tax dollars go to, because he doesnt pay taxes. You are a dumbass for believing all the conspiracy theory nonsense.
@radioactiveego LOL and how do you know your not the dumb ass?? because you dont think you are?
ha ha" they say the fool thinks himself to be a wise man but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"
so how do you know it is juts conspiracy theory nonsense? you wont because you dont think it is,lol the funy thing is you could beelive the bull shit and kent could beleive the truth,maybe thats why he gets atttacked so much
Kent gets attacked because he deserves it. He's a lying shit for brains. I am glad he's locked up. And you should be as well, for believing in such stupid nonsense.
@Helipadsarefun Humans breathe oxygen, plants breathe CO2, you moron. Plants take in Co2 and give off oxygen, humans breathe in oxygen and give off co2 you sir are the retard.
@appledapathy It's not breathing, its photosynthesis, plants also breath (or respire) all the time, but they photosynthesise more than they respire, so usually during the night it is noticed that plants respire, but they infact do it all the time, just on net, they give out more o2, than co2, but they still release co2, by respiration (or breathing)
@Helipadsarefun Photosynthesis is the process of which plants take in sunlight to convert the co2 not the fact that they are taking in Co2 you are trying to use a technicality to get out of it but you are still wrong. And yes they release some Co2 just like when you breathe you release some oxygen but mostly co2 so that would be inaccurate to say the small percentage of the Co2 is what it is giving off.
@appledapathy snap, some person on the internet is attacking me for not capitalizing letters but writing in perfect syntax. hey, i'm just pointing out that your knowledge of metabolic processes is worse than most pupils' when they enter high school. i think it's rather reasonable to say so, and i think you know it too. no need to get all anal about it :o)
i don't know who was wrong when they replied to you, but i'm judging you based on your own comment. is it fair of me to do that? :-)
everybody should google 'kent hovind's doctorate dissertation' and read what he got a PhD for. i think it is absolutely safe to say most people could write that during their mid-teen years. absolutely certain!
@JamesRideout123 you must be kidding me. i could comment on kent's disgusting attempts of tax evasion, or i could say his hair looks stupid. but no, i chose to link you to his DOCTORATE PAPER. his IDEAS. his best work to date - without bias, i can say it was shiittttttt. you must be a really squishy person to say that was ad hominem. please, read a book or something, you are wasting my *precious* time with these petty, misguided comments.
@sinprelic If there was a murderer out there who said "Look at all the crimes Israel is doing overseas" he would still be speaking the truth. Now I can say he is a murderer or rapist or thug but in the end the TRUTH is still the TRUTH, it doesn't matter who says it it doesn't change the TRUTH. Y'know what I am saying? I can listen to what he says or I cna sit back all day calling him a liar or thug or murderer but the end result is the same.
@JamesRideout123 ye. except kent hovind invokes as much intellectual respect as a curious six year old. you know he's not going to get to the answer because he's asking the wrong questions, he's interpreting the answers wrong, he is ignorant, poorly read and he thinks that power rangers are real. whoops, did i just slip in a metaphor for creationism? sorry about that :-(
I'm curious. Where is evolution taking mankind? How is it advancing mankind? The theory implies that you was a random chance happening. There's no purpose to your being. In other words, your life is meaningless. Tell me how such a theory is helping mankind?
@robdmccoy Where is "atomic theory" taking mankind? Where is "gravitational theory" taking mankind? Where is our knowledge taking mankind? You have to be joking. Without man's scientific endeavours, you would die before 35 years of age with your teeth having fallen out. Evolution is a description of the way things are: that it destroys bronze aged myths is abhorrent to you but that's just how it is. Without evolutionary theory, our chances as a species is diminished significantly.
I think you missed the point of what I was asking. Let me try again. Your life is MEANINGLESS. There is NO purpose for you even being ALIVE according to what's being taught today. Now tell me how is such a teaching helping mankind?
@robdmccoy I did not miss the point. You have missed the point which is that knowledge, our understanding of how the world works, the cold hard facts that we have acquired are independent of your feelings, your morality and ethics. Which is why asking "where is evolution taking us" or stating what the theory implies (which is a stupid observation) is utterly incongruous with the kind of question you are making.
What do you mean by "such teaching"? Teaching facts that support knowledge frameworks such as evolution, atomic, electromagnetic, gravitational theory helps mankind and other species immeasurably. But that is not what you mean is it? You're asking about morals, ethics and purpose. What has teaching facts about say, evolution, got to do with purpose, morality and ethics?
Of course, another "such teaching", no doubt in your mind, is theology. Oh yes, religion *really* helps mankind.
How does there being a deity who is going to get us to wallow in our ingratiation towards him make any more purpose in life whatsoever? Ultimately, there is no purpose to be found for the religious either. Don't you see that? What good will there be for you to be sucking at god's teat for eternity? Where's the purpose in that for him or for you? So you see, there is no *ultimate* purpose in the universe anywhere.
You're right about one thing, there's not much that you can say that will make me change my mind and I'll tell you why... I've personally experienced those things that you think are impossible. (Being healed, visions, speaking with God and having it confirmed in the physical world) I know others who've had the privilege of experiencing the reality of God as well. When you continuously experience something that the talking heads of the scientific community claim doesn't exist.....
@robdmccoy Read Phantom in the Brain by V.S. Ramachandran. Understand that whatever your experiences are, they do not overturn the scientific facts that we have established nor the picture they present of reality. Understand that your question about "where evolution is taking us" is misguided twaddle. Understand that carbon dating is a reliable and accepted technique that is corroborated by other dating methods and that Hovind's "objections" have been dealt with long ago.
If 'so called' scientific facts claims there is no God, healings, visions, and a plethora of other supernatural acts are impossible. Than yes, my experience and the experiences of many others overturns those so called facts. However, as I told someone else earlier. Whatever YOU choose to accept will become your personal reality. Whether it be fact or fiction. If you believe the limited reality that these atheist scientists hand you, than that is your reality. But consider this..
.....We live in a universe populated by trillions upon trillions of stars. Galaxies, planets and things that we know nothing about. Is it possible that in this vast universe there might other realms, other planes of existence, that you've never seen. Or even the existence of a supreme being? You're a finite being with limited knowledge and understanding of this vast universe that we reside in. Perhaps there's something bigger than what you're being taught. It's something to consider.
@robdmccoy I'm afraid you are showing yourself to be as scientifically ignorant as Kent Hovind. *No* scientist claims such things to be impossible. There is merely no evidence outside of natural explanations for what you experience. For carbon dating, the evidence is overwhelming and sensible, rational people can do nothing but accept it as factual. The voices in your head have no bearing on the sound physics of carbon dating and its deployment to accurately establish the age of fossils.
@Greatgaiwain "'Apart from very 'modern' examples which are really archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.' So they don't date fossils by C14 dating or Potassium-Ar dating, they date them by the geologic columm. They pick an spot and say, 'wow that era was so many
1. That quote was said by a student, Agers put it into the article and then explained why and how the student was wrong. Ironic, you know.
2. Archeologists, or rather lab techs, do date fossils. The tend to uses P-AR because the half life is much longer than C14, which can't go over 64,000 years.
3. There is no geologic column. There are stratospheric columns, which are vastly different than what Hovind describes.
They are simply stratospheres within the Earth based on rock or sediment type. They also move around as the earth moves, which is why no scientist trusts them to date. Ever. You couldn't anyway because you'd have no frame of reference to base a date off of.
4. We determine the age of things in a layer by doing radio carbon dating. Generally 20% of the artifacts are tested and that age is roughly used on the sediment and other artifacts.
To quote the article Hovind quotes himself, "There is some truth in the statement that these particular fossils may be dated by the strata in which they are found, but those strata are in turn are themselves dated
by other, far less showy fossils."
It's pathetic and sickening, how much this guy lies. Sad to an innumerable degree that people have to ask someone else to explain why he is lying, initially believing him.
@Greatgiwain You're citicizing someone for denying Kent Hovind is correct? Wow. The guy straight up lies about people not dating fossils, and lies about how we determine the age of fossils. He then misleads everyone into thinking that the assumptions we use are incorrect, simply because, and that labs don't account for isotopic fractionation (which they do). He also doesn't inform the viewers that C14 dating isn't the only way we date, definitely not fossils (hence his misquote).
@cemarz woah you need to refer me to when he said that cause that would be a lie... if he said that no chemical evolved then we have a whole new kettle of fish...
Wait wait wait. LMAO. In this video the Hovind moron contradicts his other claims that no one has ever seen chemical evolution - which he himself defines as one element transforming into another. So how can he say one element can not transform into another then then show oh look Nitrogen can become Carbon. I mean I expect a little more, even from this buffoon.
@GREATGAIWAIN Whatever you meant to say had no actual meaning. Hovind has claimed that no chemical has ever changed into another chemical, yet here he admits Nitrogen changes into Carbon. So WTF are you trying to say - beyond your denial of the obvious contradiction.
okay lets do this slowly.... high speed energy, you are retarded. It will go to zero once you get less than one molecule durrrrrrr. Its assumed because its a reasonable assumption like you said. You forgot a few things, carbon dating doesnt work past 1944 due to the detonation of the first atomic bomb which created carbon 14 and disrupted the amount in the atmosphere. Another reason is if you add more carbon to the atmosphere, which we have done, then the figure is disrupted.
1. Uhh..he totally effs up how carbon dating works. Scientists check the decay from carbon-14 to nitrogen, and check with the ration of carbon-12. Scientists don't need the atmosphere for this.
2. Why is he even talking about carbon dating if he himself said fossils weren't dated with radiometric dating strategies?
@emptysea2000 carbon dating is wrong!, 90% of all dating methods give a date of less then a billion of 40% , i have been told this by a fiew geologists, also the cambrian explosion completely contradicts darwins theory.
@Aheadstix85 Less than a billion of 40%? I think you have a typo somewhere.
The Cambrian explosion doesn't really say anything, except there was a massive change in life. We don't know the cause for the explosion. Evolution has been shown to work at an elevated rate when environment and social factors change. We would have to prove that these were moot during the explosion to blow apart the theory.
Best way to falsify the theory is find a mammal in Cambrian rock. Good luck!
Holy shit... So I watched the entire clip now... This man is not only scientifically illiterate, he is making comprehension errors at the level of an 8-year-old =/ His lack of intelligence and knowledge is simply mind staggering. How can he believe himself when he says he tought high school science???
His first reference is to the American Journal of Science, an issue from 1974... I'm not even gonna adress the quote mining fallacy he commits here, because even if the quote were to be correct and relevant, his source is so outdated to scientific standards that it has become more than worthless.
Animals, so efficient in their various niches, that it is staggering to think that any other animal, such as the present day mammals could have survived. Surely, there would be mention dinosaurs that were specific to that region and not just the rare mention. A massive predator would have surely made a huge impact on their lives!
I understand not just believing the theory of evolution, simply because it is taught and people say that it is correct. There are many examples where a theory everyone agrees on, that has been widely taught, has been shown to be incorrect. That scepticism is usually a good thing. However, if one were to go along with this 'alternative' theory, with the Bible as it's source, surely there would be mention of the fantastical animals that made these fossils?
Dr. Kent Hovind speaks the truth about the age of the earth! Sadly too many people have fallen for the evolutionary deception. Science and the bible are in total harmony if both are understood right. Hang in there Kent you are doing an amazing job!!!
@TheNorseman99 Thats exactly correct!, i know an evolutionists that actually agrees that God must have created everything, as science has no answer for how life got started, abiogsnsis says it just happened?!?!, thats scientifically impossible!.
heres a question i ask every evolutionist, if your brain is just an evolved mokeys brain, evolved for survival, then how do you trust it for logic??. answer?, you cannot!.
@TheNorseman99 ok lets all believe in the bible and do what it say kill other people for not believe in god and whitch is are real as well your fucking retard hahaha XD you only say its wrong due to your own beliefs lets all say the theory of gravity is not real as well hahaha. and kent is dumb as well he say stupid things like wrinkles are caused by radiation and the earth had a ice shild over it if that were to be true we would all die due to drowning and it would not last a day hahahah
@superwowie111 So let me get this straight everything on google about evolution is fact and everything on you tube about creationism is lies. Very interesting. And very stupid.
No. But creationism pretty much consists of either ignorance of science or misrepresentation of it, which can be quickly fixed with about 10 minutes of research. And I didn't mention evolution by the way.
Of course the geologic column doesn't "exist." Animals from certain time periods don't get together and die on top of each other. The column isn't a literal column. It is a series of columns spliced together by index fossils.
I applaud you for knowing String Theory, exciting discoveries are coming one should hope! I do apologize for that. But I do not think just because one may think he "knows" Jesus for his, kindness, forgiving ways, yadayada
I think that is irrelevant, for 18 years I assumed I was going to Hell if I did not "know" Jesus". But I opened up to reason and stopped kidding myself. Science shuts Christianity down. Do I think there is a divine power? Maybe there is, just
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is a picture of "Dr" Hovind's "University" Replace * with a . imgur*com/BbsO2
soulsmile72 2 weeks ago
is this a joke lol
xpforl 3 weeks ago
Carbon 14 is everywhere, so what? It is made underground when exposed to radiation.
The earth and dinosaur fossils are not dated with the C14, it don't work dummies.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Date the fossil? But there is no F**king carbon in it !
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz
oh but there is carbon14 in some dinosaur fossils. this poses a problem for you. im sure you and i have talked about this before but i will bring it up again. why is carbon14 found in dinosaur fossils like the one mary schweitzer found in montana, with soft tissue (not biofilm, this has been proven)? please explain this. the presence of dinosaur soft tissue with carbon14 in it proves that the dinosaur is not 30,000 yers old.
jndillaha 1 month ago
@gregrutz
i meant to say that it is not more than 30,000 years old, according to john bada at the scripps oceanography institute. certainly no more than 50,000 years old since carbon14 was found in it.
jndillaha 1 month ago
Watch ''Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked'' to see why Hovind lies.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Yes Kent they test a lot of stuff, that is how they know when it works well and like snails, when it does not work. It also cross checks with all the other dating methods that you must also deny work.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Go to the Grand Canyon and then tell me with a straight face, ''the geologic column does not exist''. You are looking at one, the 44 layers of rock below you.
Kent did say the truth once. ''They don't use Carbon 14 to date fossils'', that is because they are too old. They use C14 to date Egyptian sites to 6000 BC, that is why Kent has to prove it wrong. And every scientist in the world wrong.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Wow...
InContemplation 3 months ago
thats archeology anyway big guy, thats funny science has to change their books every couple of years, the bible never changed. science is compounded theories that are constantly changing. just something that might mess with your head, the bible mentions dinos several times.
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 Science books are updating their theories because scientists keep discovering more facts. We are learning more all the time. The bible doesn't change, it still says the earth is flat and the center of everything.
JOB 40:
15 Behold now behemoth
16 His strength is in his loins and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Dinosaurs come from eggs, THEY DON’T HAVE NAVELS.
Keep lying like Hovind.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz its an expression. like your loins or bussum. its the center. and i dont know how we know the tissue makeup of something we only found bones for, nevermind prove that it had offspring.
burl101 2 months ago
@burl101 Home schooled are we?
1. Fossils are rocks, not bones. There are also fossilized mummies so they have organs and skin fossils.
2. A fossil proves something lived in the past, not just that something died.
3. Breeding population evolve, not one animal. We don't have to prove it had offspring.
4. Evolution is a proven process, the theory that explains it keeps changing and getting better.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz no im not home schooled, i was taught creation in sunday school and evolution in biology class. both religions. im sorry you worship time and matter. the bible states that the world is round. Isaiah 40:22. and how can something be a proven process if it cannot be a proven theory?
burl101 2 months ago
@burl101 Sorry if you can't tell the difference between religion and science.
Isaiah 40 : 22-24
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.”
I can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper, they are 2D. FLAT.
Evolution is a process that happens. There is a theory that explains how it happens.
And I don't worship.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz evolution doesn't happen. It just doesn't. Every creature is unique
OldaurGold 2 months ago
@OldaurGold That is why muscle for muscle, bone for bone we are the same as chimps, even 98.6% the same DNA.
And most of the species that ever lived are extinct... no dinos, no neanderthals, no trilobites, no sabertooth tigers. Yes they are all unique, how do you explain them?
Scientist have found many of the missing links and 20 different dinosaurs with feathers.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz that still doesn't demonstrate that the process of evoution - the process - can occur
OldaurGold 2 months ago
@OldaurGold The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaur fossils.
No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.
No dating method used
Your theory?
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz oh yes there have beef found, trilobites and rabbits have been found together i have seen it i will try to find it and i will send it to you.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas You are correct, trilobites did not go extinct. my bad. You won't find bunny fossils in rock so old that trilobites were the most advanced life form at that time in earth's history.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz so you're saying that trilobites survived for 500 million years? wow evolution let them survive for that long?????? thank you for proving my point.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas What was your point? Sharks have been around for million of years too, proving Kent wrong. Why do creatards think ''living fossils'' prove anything other than it didn't go extinct.???
I guess that like Kent you don't understand evolution.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz prove that sharks were here that long
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Look at the fossil record. Go to school and get a degree in Geology or Paleonology. I can't educate you in 500 characters.
Any college science student can prove Kent wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz OK Tell me what does fossil record prove?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas The fossils record proves everything Kent is trying to dis-prove.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz All right te me what does it prove?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Kent thinks he can prove every scientist in the world wrong to save his warped view of the world and the bible.
Any college student can show him evidence to prove him wrong.
The oldest know town is 12,000 years old, Kent is just plain wrong.
Chinese history goes back more than 4400 years !
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz well I guess it finally narrows down to how did the got the numbers of 12,000 years. Can you please tell me? Is is carbon dating?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon is below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains [tilted], worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz I think it took couple of weeks. Did you know that rivers flow down hill? Did you know that The top of Grand Canyon is higher than the place where the river enters the canyon?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Yes Geologists have a problem. Rivers go through mountains all the time, the river was there first. But the GC is a little different. One theory says the river did not start cutting the canyon until 7,000,000 years ago and some scientists think the whole area was raised up 400,000,000 years ago when the Rocky Mountains were uplifted. There is evidence of a lake to the northeast.
Learn the facts about the river going up hill.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@ProMajtas ''The top of Grand Canyon is higher than the place where the river enters the canyon?''
Did you learn that form the kid Eric Hoving WHO HAS THE RIVER FLOWING THE WRONG DIRECTION ! I would look for a real geologist to get my science.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz as far as I know you don't need a PHD professor in geology to figure out that water doesn't flow uphill.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas There is a problem. Scientists think the river cut the canyon starting about 6 million years but the whole area was though to have been raised up 400 million years ago when the Rocky Mts. were formed. Why don't you study the problem and tell us your answer. You have been given the facts, you can't chnage them.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Well these are your facts not mine. Again look up the Word science in dictionary. Assumption has nothing to do with science
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. So even though Kent can prove every dating method even invented by anyone wrong, it does not matter.
If Kent found a dinosaur alive it would not prove anything except dinosaurs survived, we know the small ones with feathers did.
Kent does not understand evolution enough to prove it wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz How did Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before dating? If you start a topic finish it.How do you know small dinosaurs with feathers did?
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Geologist know the earth is old becasue the studied things like the Grand Canyon and geology.
Scientists have fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. Fossil not only prove something died. They prove something lived in the distant past.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz well yes if it's dead than i will make the assumption that it used to be alive. dinosaurs with feathers? well if you are talking about the Archaeopteryx than you should know that many ornithologists have agreed that it's just a regular bird.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas Yea right, ever see a bird with teeth? Last time I looked birds had beaks.
Archaeopteryx has teeth, a boney tail and many other dinosaur features.
Open your eyes.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz my previous comment was inaccurate. Many birds today have teeth. Just type on Google birds with teeth. You will find many of them. One more thing. If evolution was true You would be able to find Billions of transitional fossils everywhere in the world. That Archaeopteryx is simply some fossil of some duck. For example greylag goose. Even if evolution is true it is not worth defending at all because it is USELESS.
ProMajtas 1 month ago
@ProMajtas NO, a few birds have beaks with teeth. Archaeopteryx did not have a beak and had a dinosaur head and teeth.
Fossils of half/half:
Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 1 month ago
@burl101 Thank goodness that science changes.If we took science from your fucked up Bible we would be trying to cure leprosy by killing birds.
Science WORKS.That's why we are living up to the age of 80.
Your religion basically has given NOTHING to mankind.
Stevoukos 2 months ago
@Stevoukos right, except the fact that all of mankind uses the Bible as a moral compass, including swearing on it in a court of law. theres people who live to 130 that live in thirrd world countries that dont have healthcare. yea vaccines are great. who would of thought if you exposed yourself to a dead form of every disese in the world your God given immune system would recognize them and fight viruses off.
burl101 2 months ago
@burl101 God didn't "give" us our immune system.
We have a pretty good understanding of how our immune system evolved to it's present state.
Now if you use the Bible as a "moral code" then you have no morality whatsoever.
If you are standing there not killing people just because the "Bible says so" then you are a very VERY dangerous man.
Finally,I have a 5 year old daughter.What's a good price for her if I go sell her?Your Bible "morality" justifies slavery so I really want to be "moral".
Stevoukos 2 months ago
Fossils are not dated by there position in the rock except that the older ones are one the bottom.
Carbon 14 is not used to date rocks [fossils]
Geologist know the earth was millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz and fish are lizards, because somebody told you the once had legs??
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 No, lizards are cordates just like fish.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz right, exactly my point, a lot of animals are similar, but all things were created in their KIND
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 Yes, dogs make dogs, apes make apes, that is why humans are still apes, still mammals, still cordates and still animals.
''all things were created '' How do you know? Were you there?
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz so when exactly did apes decide to stop being apes and start being human, and still be apes? dude your barking up the wrong tree here. this is good christians coming in and putting good words in on science. i love science and it does work well with creation. have fun living for nothing and then rotting in the ground after no one says a prayer to a non-existent God.
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 Why can't you people stay on topic? You start talking about apes, a classification, and change to God. Science does not commet on God, sorry if they keep discovering things that don't match your creation story.
Humans are Mammals, they didn't not stop being mammals when they got big brains and walked upright.
Humans are Primates, they did not stop being primates when they became homo sapians.
Same KIND >>>as evolution predicts.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz even darwin said his theory is flawed. go mingle with some evolutionists man!
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 Darwin is dead, he was wrong about some things, his ideas are 150 years out of date.
So what?
Read a Biology book and try and keep up with Science.
And tell Hovind they don't use Carbon 14 Dating on fossils. They use it on Egyptian artifacts from their farming in 6000 BC. They had many floods and did not all die.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz humans share more similarities with pigs than we do apes. shows how related we are. and thats as scientific fact dawg.
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 Our closest living reletive is the Chimp. Humans ARE apes, so are gorillias, chimps and orangatans. We are also mammals like pigs.
Our DNA is 98.6% the same as a Chimps. Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz you don't have to school me on classes and phylums and nucleic acids i went to high school just like you where they didn't even give creation a chance. its because theres no money in research in creation. we already know what happened. mane you should listen to people like doctors.
burl101 3 months ago
@gregrutz "it also depends on which study you use as to what is our closest relative. If you compare eyes, it is the octopus. If you compare teeth and palates, we are more closely related to orangutans than chimps. If you compare hearts, we are closest to pigs (ever stop to wonder why they are cloning pigs for organ transplants rather than chimps?). Compare cytochrome C and our closest relatives are sunflowers!"
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 and when you compare DNA we are almost the same as chimps. Glad you see everything is related by evolution.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@micah1116 They use known to decay rates (not necessarily carbon) to date the fossils, from there they date the geologic column. It's a shame all the fossils that are dated around the same era using these techniques also are in the same strata in the geologic column. Kind of puts a damper on the whole, "Derp, day were slower, so got buried by da flood earlier" argument.
TheMathLife 4 months ago
"when you burn the forests, the trees next door grow faster. so really there is no environmental problem like they would have you believe" lol at that
kirtongreg 4 months ago
watch?v=QbvMB57evy4
zippidy0 4 months ago
It truly puts things in it's proper perspective.
robdmccoy 5 months ago
Why should anyone take "evolutionists" (whatever they are) "to school over carbon dating"? It's physicists and geologists who support the technique.
Galactorate 6 months ago
I don't see what is so bad about what he is presenting. It makes since and anybody who has been brainwashed into believing that there is no way the Dating system of Carbon is flawed or doesn't work will attack these logical ideas.
This isn't the only thing that proves the earth CANT be billions of years old, take a look at population growth recently, Helium content, recent inventions, etc. The earth would be gone by now or at least a LOT different if it were truly 4.5 Billion years old...
ConcealedTruism 6 months ago
@ConcealedTruism
Carbon dating isn't flawed, It's limitations were documented decades ago. And your helium content argument was debunked, see "Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996". Of course, you'll just deny it because it doesn't fit the christian worldview. How arrogant.
radioactiveego 6 months ago
@ConcealedTruism You clearly don't get your science from any respected authorities and sources. It has long been settled by serious scientists that earth is billions of years old and that the science behind carbon dating and other means of dating is sound. Myth doctors like Hovind can impress the gullible and uneducated - good luck with your delusions and ignorance.
Galactorate 5 months ago
Comment removed
ZmstrZ 6 months ago
Comment removed
ZmstrZ 6 months ago
hay kent you can't use carbon dating on fossils because theres no FUCKING carbon
zooryanzoo123 6 months ago
chernobyl?
HarrysMusicBlog 7 months ago
LOL, we have income tax supporters here. Your 13th amendment was never ratified.
Chumnah 7 months ago
@Chumnah The important thing is Kent is in jail and been debunked.
gregrutz 2 months ago
how them 'abominations' taste?
Alverthorpe 7 months ago
Federal prisoner Kent Hovin. Tax cheat & nincompoop.
Alverthorpe 7 months ago
creation vs evolution . freeforums. org
purdyr 7 months ago
I was hoping this was a debate to why he didn't pay his taxes, and lied to the government.
radioactiveego 8 months ago
@radioactiveego lol fuck the government
there is no actual law stating you have to pay income taxes in america
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281
You don't live in America, STFU.
radioactiveego 6 months ago
@radioactiveego yeah and im glad,ameirca aint the land of the free,they have carefully turned it into a police state but thats what happens when you have a satanic conspiracy controling america and the world,the whole system is corrupt and there is no actual law so i can kinda see were Kent was coming from.Plus he was right about having to pay taxes to support the evolution theory so they can pretend its fact.
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281
You have no idea about the tax situation here. What happens when you don't pay taxes in England? You'll probably go to jail. What happens when you don't pay taxes in America? You go to jail, like Kent Hovind. You don't live here, so stfu. We have what's called the establishment clause, which is keeping our country out of the hands of the church (thankfully) and religious morons like yourself.
radioactiveego 6 months ago
@radioactiveego yeah but you actually dont have to pay income tax in america,there is no actual law.Yes in england you would be in prison but its illegal if america puts you in prison for something they dont even have alwa for.Thats why alot of IRS workers have quite and stoped paying taxes,they say well show me the actual law.LOL you say that but i hear the vatican is running the world so if you think about it your country is still in the hands of the church but from behind the scenes.
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281
You don't pay taxes, you go to jail. You can sit here and argue the laws till your blue in the face, but not paying your taxes (failing to file a return) is against the law and many people have been convicted of it. You are pretty stupid. Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution and the 16th amendment. Ugh. People take advice from this convicted felon? LOL.
radioactiveego 6 months ago
@radioactiveego watch the video "AMERICA FREEDOM TO FACISM"
see if you have to pay income tax,just because the yanks throw you in prison does not mean they are right,they are corrupt and have the power to throw people in priosn wether or not they are guilty,you cross the line and they can bring you up on false charges.They were very happy to shit kent up because he went against there theory that they want people to take as fact.Its not fact and god is still in the job.
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281
They threw Kent in Jail for 56 counts of tax evasion. Then he was recorded on tape trying to get his son to commit perjury by lying to the government. Kent can't argue where his tax dollars go to, because he doesnt pay taxes. You are a dumbass for believing all the conspiracy theory nonsense.
radioactiveego 6 months ago
@radioactiveego LOL and how do you know your not the dumb ass?? because you dont think you are?
ha ha" they say the fool thinks himself to be a wise man but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"
so how do you know it is juts conspiracy theory nonsense? you wont because you dont think it is,lol the funy thing is you could beelive the bull shit and kent could beleive the truth,maybe thats why he gets atttacked so much
pinball281 6 months ago
@pinball281
Kent gets attacked because he deserves it. He's a lying shit for brains. I am glad he's locked up. And you should be as well, for believing in such stupid nonsense.
radioactiveego 6 months ago
Geology proves the earth is old, they knew that before dating methods were discovered.
Why does he think we can't test living things to see how much C14 is in it?
gregrutz 9 months ago
Hey Kent. There is no f**king Carbon in a fossil.
gregrutz 9 months ago
RETARD
PUMKINMANforever 9 months ago
Plants don't breath CO2 retard.
Helipadsarefun 9 months ago
@Helipadsarefun Humans breathe oxygen, plants breathe CO2, you moron. Plants take in Co2 and give off oxygen, humans breathe in oxygen and give off co2 you sir are the retard.
appledapathy 9 months ago
@appledapathy It's not breathing, its photosynthesis, plants also breath (or respire) all the time, but they photosynthesise more than they respire, so usually during the night it is noticed that plants respire, but they infact do it all the time, just on net, they give out more o2, than co2, but they still release co2, by respiration (or breathing)
Helipadsarefun 9 months ago
@Helipadsarefun Photosynthesis is the process of which plants take in sunlight to convert the co2 not the fact that they are taking in Co2 you are trying to use a technicality to get out of it but you are still wrong. And yes they release some Co2 just like when you breathe you release some oxygen but mostly co2 so that would be inaccurate to say the small percentage of the Co2 is what it is giving off.
appledapathy 9 months ago
@appledapathy Think you need to read all of my post, I did say that they give a net release of o2 off, which is basically what you just said...
Helipadsarefun 9 months ago
@appledapathy hahah owned by high school kids. must burn a lot doesnt it :-DD
sinprelic 9 months ago
@sinprelic Not really since he was wrong, but I can tell by your grammar that you aren't the sharpest either.
appledapathy 9 months ago
@appledapathy snap, some person on the internet is attacking me for not capitalizing letters but writing in perfect syntax. hey, i'm just pointing out that your knowledge of metabolic processes is worse than most pupils' when they enter high school. i think it's rather reasonable to say so, and i think you know it too. no need to get all anal about it :o)
i don't know who was wrong when they replied to you, but i'm judging you based on your own comment. is it fair of me to do that? :-)
sinprelic 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent need to try to disprove Carbon dating or any dating methods that says that the Earth is older then what the bibel say..
To keep this old belief alive.
And he's trying really hard. :P
TheNorthCold 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheNorthCold 10 months ago
everybody should google 'kent hovind's doctorate dissertation' and read what he got a PhD for. i think it is absolutely safe to say most people could write that during their mid-teen years. absolutely certain!
sinprelic 10 months ago
@sinprelic This is a typical case of attack the messenger and not the message
JamesRideout123 9 months ago
@JamesRideout123 you must be kidding me. i could comment on kent's disgusting attempts of tax evasion, or i could say his hair looks stupid. but no, i chose to link you to his DOCTORATE PAPER. his IDEAS. his best work to date - without bias, i can say it was shiittttttt. you must be a really squishy person to say that was ad hominem. please, read a book or something, you are wasting my *precious* time with these petty, misguided comments.
sinprelic 9 months ago
@sinprelic If there was a murderer out there who said "Look at all the crimes Israel is doing overseas" he would still be speaking the truth. Now I can say he is a murderer or rapist or thug but in the end the TRUTH is still the TRUTH, it doesn't matter who says it it doesn't change the TRUTH. Y'know what I am saying? I can listen to what he says or I cna sit back all day calling him a liar or thug or murderer but the end result is the same.
JamesRideout123 9 months ago
@JamesRideout123 ye. except kent hovind invokes as much intellectual respect as a curious six year old. you know he's not going to get to the answer because he's asking the wrong questions, he's interpreting the answers wrong, he is ignorant, poorly read and he thinks that power rangers are real. whoops, did i just slip in a metaphor for creationism? sorry about that :-(
sinprelic 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOLLOW THESE STEPS
1.COVER YOUR MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND
2.WHISPER A WISH INTO YOUR HAND
3.POST THIS ONTO TEN OTHER COMMENTS
4.NOW LOOK AT YOUR HAND
SteveLoversPizza 10 months ago
OI HOVIND, THERE'S NO FUCKIN CARBON IN IT!
Hovind's a troll, and right now Bubba's having his way with him.
ReasonDefender 11 months ago
I would not trust someone claiming to be knowledgeable in chemistry and then proceeds to say that nitrogen and carbon are numbers 14 and 12.
AmbrotosArkhon 11 months ago
Yes, the fossils are dated oldest on the bottom, youngest on top. Thanks for proving it is NOT circular reasoning.
The Geologic column is a time scale, it exists everywhere.
They date ash layers above and below fossils.
Don't pick up the soap in the shower.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz
I disagree, Let him pick up as much soap as he wants. Payback for the millions he's sapped from people.
ReasonDefender 11 months ago
I'm just curious to know what does Kent Hovind and creationism do for the world and the advancement of humankind?
MGiants82 11 months ago
@MGiants82
Obvious anwser; Jack with a side of Shit.
ReasonDefender 11 months ago
@MGiants82
I'm curious. Where is evolution taking mankind? How is it advancing mankind? The theory implies that you was a random chance happening. There's no purpose to your being. In other words, your life is meaningless. Tell me how such a theory is helping mankind?
robdmccoy 5 months ago
@robdmccoy Where is "atomic theory" taking mankind? Where is "gravitational theory" taking mankind? Where is our knowledge taking mankind? You have to be joking. Without man's scientific endeavours, you would die before 35 years of age with your teeth having fallen out. Evolution is a description of the way things are: that it destroys bronze aged myths is abhorrent to you but that's just how it is. Without evolutionary theory, our chances as a species is diminished significantly.
Galactorate 5 months ago
@Galactorate
I think you missed the point of what I was asking. Let me try again. Your life is MEANINGLESS. There is NO purpose for you even being ALIVE according to what's being taught today. Now tell me how is such a teaching helping mankind?
robdmccoy 5 months ago
@robdmccoy I did not miss the point. You have missed the point which is that knowledge, our understanding of how the world works, the cold hard facts that we have acquired are independent of your feelings, your morality and ethics. Which is why asking "where is evolution taking us" or stating what the theory implies (which is a stupid observation) is utterly incongruous with the kind of question you are making.
Galactorate 5 months ago
What do you mean by "such teaching"? Teaching facts that support knowledge frameworks such as evolution, atomic, electromagnetic, gravitational theory helps mankind and other species immeasurably. But that is not what you mean is it? You're asking about morals, ethics and purpose. What has teaching facts about say, evolution, got to do with purpose, morality and ethics?
Of course, another "such teaching", no doubt in your mind, is theology. Oh yes, religion *really* helps mankind.
Galactorate 5 months ago
How does there being a deity who is going to get us to wallow in our ingratiation towards him make any more purpose in life whatsoever? Ultimately, there is no purpose to be found for the religious either. Don't you see that? What good will there be for you to be sucking at god's teat for eternity? Where's the purpose in that for him or for you? So you see, there is no *ultimate* purpose in the universe anywhere.
Galactorate 5 months ago
@Galactorate Stop wasting your time arguing with robmcoy.
MGiants82 5 months ago
@Galactorate
You're right about one thing, there's not much that you can say that will make me change my mind and I'll tell you why... I've personally experienced those things that you think are impossible. (Being healed, visions, speaking with God and having it confirmed in the physical world) I know others who've had the privilege of experiencing the reality of God as well. When you continuously experience something that the talking heads of the scientific community claim doesn't exist.....
robdmccoy 5 months ago
@robdmccoy Read Phantom in the Brain by V.S. Ramachandran. Understand that whatever your experiences are, they do not overturn the scientific facts that we have established nor the picture they present of reality. Understand that your question about "where evolution is taking us" is misguided twaddle. Understand that carbon dating is a reliable and accepted technique that is corroborated by other dating methods and that Hovind's "objections" have been dealt with long ago.
Galactorate 5 months ago
@Galactorate
If 'so called' scientific facts claims there is no God, healings, visions, and a plethora of other supernatural acts are impossible. Than yes, my experience and the experiences of many others overturns those so called facts. However, as I told someone else earlier. Whatever YOU choose to accept will become your personal reality. Whether it be fact or fiction. If you believe the limited reality that these atheist scientists hand you, than that is your reality. But consider this..
robdmccoy 5 months ago
.....We live in a universe populated by trillions upon trillions of stars. Galaxies, planets and things that we know nothing about. Is it possible that in this vast universe there might other realms, other planes of existence, that you've never seen. Or even the existence of a supreme being? You're a finite being with limited knowledge and understanding of this vast universe that we reside in. Perhaps there's something bigger than what you're being taught. It's something to consider.
robdmccoy 5 months ago
@robdmccoy I'm afraid you are showing yourself to be as scientifically ignorant as Kent Hovind. *No* scientist claims such things to be impossible. There is merely no evidence outside of natural explanations for what you experience. For carbon dating, the evidence is overwhelming and sensible, rational people can do nothing but accept it as factual. The voices in your head have no bearing on the sound physics of carbon dating and its deployment to accurately establish the age of fossils.
Galactorate 5 months ago
@robdmccoy Do you really think anything I tell you will change your mind? I won't try sorry.
MGiants82 5 months ago
@robdmccoy Evolution explains the fossil record and why you are a primate.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@gregrutz your an idiot.
burl101 3 months ago
@gregrutz your an idiot. those are extinct apes
burl101 3 months ago
@burl101 Humans are Apes, our ancestors will be apes........IDiot.
gregrutz 3 months ago
@Greatgaiwain "'Apart from very 'modern' examples which are really archeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.' So they don't date fossils by C14 dating or Potassium-Ar dating, they date them by the geologic columm. They pick an spot and say, 'wow that era was so many
thousand years ago, this must be that old.'"
cemarz 1 year ago
1. That quote was said by a student, Agers put it into the article and then explained why and how the student was wrong. Ironic, you know.
2. Archeologists, or rather lab techs, do date fossils. The tend to uses P-AR because the half life is much longer than C14, which can't go over 64,000 years.
3. There is no geologic column. There are stratospheric columns, which are vastly different than what Hovind describes.
cemarz 1 year ago
They are simply stratospheres within the Earth based on rock or sediment type. They also move around as the earth moves, which is why no scientist trusts them to date. Ever. You couldn't anyway because you'd have no frame of reference to base a date off of.
4. We determine the age of things in a layer by doing radio carbon dating. Generally 20% of the artifacts are tested and that age is roughly used on the sediment and other artifacts.
cemarz 1 year ago
To quote the article Hovind quotes himself, "There is some truth in the statement that these particular fossils may be dated by the strata in which they are found, but those strata are in turn are themselves dated
by other, far less showy fossils."
It's pathetic and sickening, how much this guy lies. Sad to an innumerable degree that people have to ask someone else to explain why he is lying, initially believing him.
cemarz 1 year ago
@Greatgiwain You're citicizing someone for denying Kent Hovind is correct? Wow. The guy straight up lies about people not dating fossils, and lies about how we determine the age of fossils. He then misleads everyone into thinking that the assumptions we use are incorrect, simply because, and that labs don't account for isotopic fractionation (which they do). He also doesn't inform the viewers that C14 dating isn't the only way we date, definitely not fossils (hence his misquote).
cemarz 1 year ago
@cemarz woah you need to refer me to when he said that cause that would be a lie... if he said that no chemical evolved then we have a whole new kettle of fish...
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
Wait wait wait. LMAO. In this video the Hovind moron contradicts his other claims that no one has ever seen chemical evolution - which he himself defines as one element transforming into another. So how can he say one element can not transform into another then then show oh look Nitrogen can become Carbon. I mean I expect a little more, even from this buffoon.
g24417 1 year ago
@g24417 but you completely ignore what he says right after...where it decays and begins to break back down...anything to keep denying huh?
GREATGAIWAIN 1 year ago
@GREATGAIWAIN Whatever you meant to say had no actual meaning. Hovind has claimed that no chemical has ever changed into another chemical, yet here he admits Nitrogen changes into Carbon. So WTF are you trying to say - beyond your denial of the obvious contradiction.
g24417 1 year ago
Why doesn't this idiot address RADIO METRIC dating? Oh that's right, he's not really a scientist, and a FRAUD, IN JAIL, on top of that! LOL!
evelsteev 1 year ago
You people should stay as far away from science as is humanly possible. I feel ashamed in your places.
Poltionorch 1 year ago
okay lets do this slowly.... high speed energy, you are retarded. It will go to zero once you get less than one molecule durrrrrrr. Its assumed because its a reasonable assumption like you said. You forgot a few things, carbon dating doesnt work past 1944 due to the detonation of the first atomic bomb which created carbon 14 and disrupted the amount in the atmosphere. Another reason is if you add more carbon to the atmosphere, which we have done, then the figure is disrupted.
braedencowbrough 1 year ago
Yeah!, i get the candle example!, scientists don't know, its an assumption.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
1. Uhh..he totally effs up how carbon dating works. Scientists check the decay from carbon-14 to nitrogen, and check with the ration of carbon-12. Scientists don't need the atmosphere for this.
2. Why is he even talking about carbon dating if he himself said fossils weren't dated with radiometric dating strategies?
Someone in jail better fuck some sense into him.
emptysea2000 1 year ago
@emptysea2000 carbon dating is wrong!, 90% of all dating methods give a date of less then a billion of 40% , i have been told this by a fiew geologists, also the cambrian explosion completely contradicts darwins theory.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85 Less than a billion of 40%? I think you have a typo somewhere.
The Cambrian explosion doesn't really say anything, except there was a massive change in life. We don't know the cause for the explosion. Evolution has been shown to work at an elevated rate when environment and social factors change. We would have to prove that these were moot during the explosion to blow apart the theory.
Best way to falsify the theory is find a mammal in Cambrian rock. Good luck!
emptysea2000 1 year ago
carbon dating as a half life of 15000 years
mickeykozzi 1 year ago
Holy shit... So I watched the entire clip now... This man is not only scientifically illiterate, he is making comprehension errors at the level of an 8-year-old =/ His lack of intelligence and knowledge is simply mind staggering. How can he believe himself when he says he tought high school science???
Poltionorch 1 year ago
@Poltionorch No hs is not!, he speaks truth!, i know a handful of scientists with degrees and PH.d that can back him up!.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
His first reference is to the American Journal of Science, an issue from 1974... I'm not even gonna adress the quote mining fallacy he commits here, because even if the quote were to be correct and relevant, his source is so outdated to scientific standards that it has become more than worthless.
Poltionorch 1 year ago
Animals, so efficient in their various niches, that it is staggering to think that any other animal, such as the present day mammals could have survived. Surely, there would be mention dinosaurs that were specific to that region and not just the rare mention. A massive predator would have surely made a huge impact on their lives!
iKidDoomi 1 year ago
I understand not just believing the theory of evolution, simply because it is taught and people say that it is correct. There are many examples where a theory everyone agrees on, that has been widely taught, has been shown to be incorrect. That scepticism is usually a good thing. However, if one were to go along with this 'alternative' theory, with the Bible as it's source, surely there would be mention of the fantastical animals that made these fossils?
iKidDoomi 1 year ago
Dr. Kent Hovind speaks the truth about the age of the earth! Sadly too many people have fallen for the evolutionary deception. Science and the bible are in total harmony if both are understood right. Hang in there Kent you are doing an amazing job!!!
TheNorseman99 1 year ago
@TheNorseman99 Yeah he needs all the help he can get in prison
joseph18dx 1 year ago
@TheNorseman99 Thats exactly correct!, i know an evolutionists that actually agrees that God must have created everything, as science has no answer for how life got started, abiogsnsis says it just happened?!?!, thats scientifically impossible!.
heres a question i ask every evolutionist, if your brain is just an evolved mokeys brain, evolved for survival, then how do you trust it for logic??. answer?, you cannot!.
Aheadstix85 1 year ago
@Aheadstix85 first expalin why it just cant happen that makes more sence then god because if god was real he would need to have a creator.
bellyzbad 11 months ago
@bellyzbad ....and i suposse if you were real, then you would need a creator too
summerbreezeify0 11 months ago
@summerbreezeify0 well we have proof i was created there is no proof god created everythink and why would you apply that to the univeres
bellyzbad 11 months ago
@TheNorseman99 ok lets all believe in the bible and do what it say kill other people for not believe in god and whitch is are real as well your fucking retard hahaha XD you only say its wrong due to your own beliefs lets all say the theory of gravity is not real as well hahaha. and kent is dumb as well he say stupid things like wrinkles are caused by radiation and the earth had a ice shild over it if that were to be true we would all die due to drowning and it would not last a day hahahah
bellyzbad 11 months ago
I don't know how people can still take Hovind seriously now that Google exists. You can debunk all creationist bullshit with the click of a mouse.
superwowie111 1 year ago
@superwowie111 So let me get this straight everything on google about evolution is fact and everything on you tube about creationism is lies. Very interesting. And very stupid.
glendaweil 1 year ago
@glendaweil
No. But creationism pretty much consists of either ignorance of science or misrepresentation of it, which can be quickly fixed with about 10 minutes of research. And I didn't mention evolution by the way.
superwowie111 1 year ago
I have a question! Andromeda is 2.5 million miles away--how do we see it.
hatemorethanyou999 1 year ago
kent hovin is an old joke, nothing he says is correct anymore. Why dont you christians get a new debator so that us evolutionists can have some fun.
angellicvoices 1 year ago
i don't know how old this vid is... but has anyone else noticed all the articles he references are way old?
dannners 1 year ago
I love Bin Laden!
OBMB 1 year ago
Of course the geologic column doesn't "exist." Animals from certain time periods don't get together and die on top of each other. The column isn't a literal column. It is a series of columns spliced together by index fossils.
NoNameLikeThisOne 1 year ago
Carbon 14 is only one radiometric dating method used. It is not used to date fossils, diamonds or snails, they know it does not work on them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
JFri4321 1 year ago
Comment removed
JFri4321 1 year ago
I applaud you for knowing String Theory, exciting discoveries are coming one should hope! I do apologize for that. But I do not think just because one may think he "knows" Jesus for his, kindness, forgiving ways, yadayada
I think that is irrelevant, for 18 years I assumed I was going to Hell if I did not "know" Jesus". But I opened up to reason and stopped kidding myself. Science shuts Christianity down. Do I think there is a divine power? Maybe there is, just