Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
- Thread starter JackH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
Sorry, Jack. Claiming sedimentary infilling of alleged dinosaur tracks that resemble human tracks is not "debunking" it is mere effort to cloud the debate.
You are quite fond of making statements of absolutes without offering any proof whatsoever of the veracity of your claims. You are the worst kind of anti-Christian -- the hater who won't open his mind even a smidgeon to admit truth, and chooses instead to spew venom, insults, and ignorance.
As such, you're a waste of anyone's time who would make an effort to engage you. May God strike you with sight so you may see.
You are quite fond of making statements of absolutes without offering any proof whatsoever of the veracity of your claims. You are the worst kind of anti-Christian -- the hater who won't open his mind even a smidgeon to admit truth, and chooses instead to spew venom, insults, and ignorance.
As such, you're a waste of anyone's time who would make an effort to engage you. May God strike you with sight so you may see.
S
Here's usually my line of reasoning with unbelievers:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we see incredible evidence of design within nature? What would be
the probability of something coming from nothing? What would be the probability of this something becoming organized
on its own? What would be the probability of this organized matter producing a single amino acid? What would be
the probability of a single amino acid developing into a complete protein? What would be the probability of a complete
protein developing into a single celled organism? etcetera, etcetera..on up the chain to a human being with intellect and
reasoning skills like we have. Then multiply all those probabilities for each step together...really when you get down to
it, it's foolish not to believe in a Creator.
2. Given that a Creator exists, would he have created man with verbal ability and then failed to communicate with him? It would
be like a scientist who creates a robot with this ability and doesn't communicate with him. If he's communicated with him,
how? I submit that if God has created with man, it is through sacred writings.
3. A handful of faiths have sacred writings. Which ones are coherent? Which ones provide a robust world view that provide
sound reasoning on the purpose of life? Which ones make truth claims that have been verified, at least partially, without
truth claims which have been totally discounted? Which ones have explaining power that resonates with us?
I would submit that this line of reasoning leads directly to Christianity as the true faith. Judaism would be a close second, due to the shared content and heritage. Islam would be a far third, and that is only due to the fact that their religion is a corrupted version of Christianity. Most people wouldn't even entertain Islam as a faith so usually that doesn't get mentioned very often..mostly due to the bloody nature of their history and current affairs. However, one can easily prove it false as the writer of the Koran didn't even know what Christians believed about the Trinity...they claim that Christians believe the Trinity is Allah, Mary and Christ, not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...so apparently Allah wasn't all knowing
There's a lot of problems with Islam.
From that point, I would encourage the person to read the Bible. Saving faith comes by hearing the word of God.
Most of the time, the person you're talking with really isn't interested in God anyways; they just want a good argument. Humans already know God exists; it's embedded into their consciousness per Romans 1. It is true that it's suppressed at some level and they may not be fully conscious of their suppression, but in their heart of hearts they know he exists and there are other barriers to faith besides knowing that God exists. Some aren't even logical barriers; they are emotional barriers or a desire to continue in sin. I can't really say what they all are, but I don't think that logic can lead someone to faith anyways. It can be used to remove some stumblingblocks in thier path though. God is the one who brings a person to faith, and spiritual regeneration is definitely needed. Salvation is God's work.
Robert
1. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we see incredible evidence of design within nature? What would be
the probability of something coming from nothing? What would be the probability of this something becoming organized
on its own? What would be the probability of this organized matter producing a single amino acid? What would be
the probability of a single amino acid developing into a complete protein? What would be the probability of a complete
protein developing into a single celled organism? etcetera, etcetera..on up the chain to a human being with intellect and
reasoning skills like we have. Then multiply all those probabilities for each step together...really when you get down to
it, it's foolish not to believe in a Creator.
2. Given that a Creator exists, would he have created man with verbal ability and then failed to communicate with him? It would
be like a scientist who creates a robot with this ability and doesn't communicate with him. If he's communicated with him,
how? I submit that if God has created with man, it is through sacred writings.
3. A handful of faiths have sacred writings. Which ones are coherent? Which ones provide a robust world view that provide
sound reasoning on the purpose of life? Which ones make truth claims that have been verified, at least partially, without
truth claims which have been totally discounted? Which ones have explaining power that resonates with us?
I would submit that this line of reasoning leads directly to Christianity as the true faith. Judaism would be a close second, due to the shared content and heritage. Islam would be a far third, and that is only due to the fact that their religion is a corrupted version of Christianity. Most people wouldn't even entertain Islam as a faith so usually that doesn't get mentioned very often..mostly due to the bloody nature of their history and current affairs. However, one can easily prove it false as the writer of the Koran didn't even know what Christians believed about the Trinity...they claim that Christians believe the Trinity is Allah, Mary and Christ, not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...so apparently Allah wasn't all knowing
There's a lot of problems with Islam.From that point, I would encourage the person to read the Bible. Saving faith comes by hearing the word of God.
Most of the time, the person you're talking with really isn't interested in God anyways; they just want a good argument. Humans already know God exists; it's embedded into their consciousness per Romans 1. It is true that it's suppressed at some level and they may not be fully conscious of their suppression, but in their heart of hearts they know he exists and there are other barriers to faith besides knowing that God exists. Some aren't even logical barriers; they are emotional barriers or a desire to continue in sin. I can't really say what they all are, but I don't think that logic can lead someone to faith anyways. It can be used to remove some stumblingblocks in thier path though. God is the one who brings a person to faith, and spiritual regeneration is definitely needed. Salvation is God's work.
Robert
first post looked at this morning - why support or believe in satan's government, satan's lies, satan's society, satan's publications, satan's credentials,
satan's "peers"...... or has no one read Ephesians this lifetime ?
kent hovind has stood up for the truth, and the gates of hell are furious against him, just as jesus says.
satan's "peers"...... or has no one read Ephesians this lifetime ?
kent hovind has stood up for the truth, and the gates of hell are furious against him, just as jesus says.
You are beating a dead horse.
What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that the dead horse is not 6,000 years old. The dead horse is millions of years old.
There is no scientific evidence from any credible source that indicates there are fossils that prove dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
Here is what one of my sources says, Glen Kuban:
For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock)
.
A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
Do you dispute any of this information?
If so, please provide a link to your source.
You are quite fond of making statements of absolutes without offering any proof whatsoever of the veracity of your claims.
What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that the dead horse is not 6,000 years old. The dead horse is millions of years old.
There is no scientific evidence from any credible source that indicates there are fossils that prove dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
Here is what one of my sources says, Glen Kuban:
For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock)
.
A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
Do you dispute any of this information?
If so, please provide a link to your source.
You are quite fond of making statements of absolutes without offering any proof whatsoever of the veracity of your claims.
Somebody apparently hit their head when he fell off a T.rex at Dr. Dino's (Kent Hovind) Dinosaur Adventure Land.
You commit numerous felonies, you likely are going to prison. Not only is Dr, Dino still in prison for the first batch of felonies, he just got convicted again on new charges and has a trial on more felonies this month.
Oh, and Dr. Dino is all into these New World Order conspiracies like you.
You commit numerous felonies, you likely are going to prison. Not only is Dr, Dino still in prison for the first batch of felonies, he just got convicted again on new charges and has a trial on more felonies this month.
Oh, and Dr. Dino is all into these New World Order conspiracies like you.
Here's what is printed in a King James Bible pertaining to the LXX:
"The most remarkable translation of the Old Testament into Greek is called the Septuagint, which, if the opinion of some eminent writers is to be credited, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 270 years before the Christian era. At any rate, it is undoubtedly the most ancient that is now extant. The five books of Moses were translated first in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, and others were added until the whole Old Testament was finished, and the version dates about 270 years before the birth of Christ. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it had attained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helped to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time when the version was made. Besides, it establishes, beyond all doubt, the point that our Lord and his inspired apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongue of all people so that all men might, in their own speech, hear the wonderful things of the Lord. All the authors of the New Testament appear to have written in the Greek language. That this tongue was already familiar to them as a vehicle to express God's inspired Word is evident from their frequent use of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, in quoting the Old Testament and from the remarkable accordance of their style with the style of that ancient and precious version."
So the LXX must be wrong because it does not jive with your 6,000 world?
The bible that Jesus and the apostles quoted from must be wrong because it does not jive with your 6,000 world?
And you claim over and over and again and again that you are a critical thinker?
LOL.
Use your God-given brain, man!
"The most remarkable translation of the Old Testament into Greek is called the Septuagint, which, if the opinion of some eminent writers is to be credited, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 270 years before the Christian era. At any rate, it is undoubtedly the most ancient that is now extant. The five books of Moses were translated first in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, and others were added until the whole Old Testament was finished, and the version dates about 270 years before the birth of Christ. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it had attained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helped to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time when the version was made. Besides, it establishes, beyond all doubt, the point that our Lord and his inspired apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongue of all people so that all men might, in their own speech, hear the wonderful things of the Lord. All the authors of the New Testament appear to have written in the Greek language. That this tongue was already familiar to them as a vehicle to express God's inspired Word is evident from their frequent use of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, in quoting the Old Testament and from the remarkable accordance of their style with the style of that ancient and precious version."
So the LXX must be wrong because it does not jive with your 6,000 world?
The bible that Jesus and the apostles quoted from must be wrong because it does not jive with your 6,000 world?
And you claim over and over and again and again that you are a critical thinker?
LOL.
Use your God-given brain, man!
Well, which edition did you draw that from? Not challenging the authenticity, as I would like to know when this was written.
In any case, if it is true that the Apostles quoted (and that would include Paul in his letters) from what we largely consider with less credibility than other texts, that presents a bit of a problem if the Apostles were quoting what is faulty to begin with. They were inspired, I believe, but not word for word. But if they learned from a faulty text, then it would follow that their own doctrines, beliefs and instructions was influenced by it.
In any case, if it is true that the Apostles quoted (and that would include Paul in his letters) from what we largely consider with less credibility than other texts, that presents a bit of a problem if the Apostles were quoting what is faulty to begin with. They were inspired, I believe, but not word for word. But if they learned from a faulty text, then it would follow that their own doctrines, beliefs and instructions was influenced by it.
