Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?

  • 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.
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Sorry you must be out of the evolutionist loop...they have given up on carbon dating and other fairy dust attempts to prove evolution....try to stay up with the current events Jack :)
Do you accept the carbon dating of the Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

That gives a date a couple hundred years before Christ?

The Book of Isaiah that contains Messianic prophecies.

And for the first time we can prove those Messianic prophecies were written before Christ walked the Earth via a manuscript that can be dated before He did.
 
J

Jack_

Guest
Do you accept the carbon dating of the Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

That gives a date a couple hundred years before Christ?

The Book of Isaiah that contains Messianic prophecies.

And for the first time we can prove those Messianic prophecies were written before Christ walked the Earth via a manuscript that can be dated before He did.
In response to that I think carbon 14 dating is only somewhat accurate within a small time period. I'm not too sure on the specifics
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
I take the bible seriously --- not literally or inerrantly.
lol .... that just means you believe what you want! You clearly don't believe its true nor that you will give account to God for keeping His truth....don't worry you can just tell Him you thought you was a monkey....Im sure He will understand when you stand before Him and answer for the truth.


2Pe 3:3 ¶ knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Mitspa

Guest
Do you accept the carbon dating of the Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

That gives a date a couple hundred years before Christ?

The Book of Isaiah that contains Messianic prophecies.

And for the first time we can prove those Messianic prophecies were written before Christ walked the Earth via a manuscript that can be dated before He did.
What part of my last post would make you think I put any confidence in carbon dating?
And the fact that the Old Testament law and prophets was universal among the Jews before Christ don't need some carbon date....anybody with a brain could figure that out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Mitspa

Guest
What massive evidence is that?

We are talking about carbon dating, the theory of evolution, and the big bang theory.

The vast majority of mainstream science and the majority of Christians accept the above.
No...no true believer thinks we came from monkeys ...Its a rejection of Christ.
 
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
No...no true believer thinks we came from monkeys ...Its a rejection of Christ.
No evolutionary scientist believes that either. If you wish to critique the theory of evolution it is best to know what evolution claims. The most accurate and concise definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time".
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
No evolutionary scientist believes that either. If you wish to critique the theory of evolution it is best to know what evolution claims. The most accurate and concise definition of evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time".
Friend...clearly evolution has always taught that all men are nothing more that advanced monkeys ...
 
Jun 27, 2015
112
2
0
valiant;2149679Evolution is NOT a fact.[/quote said:
Au contrair mon ami. Evolution is a fact. Life on this planet has changed quite dramatically over time. That is an observable fact.

It is a theory based on an hypothesis.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evolution. All theories are based on an hypothesis. Theory is as good as it gets in science and all theories are provisional in nature in that they can be rejected or amended on the basis of new information.

There is no way that evolution can be tested or observed. All that can be observed are adaptations, some of which are beneficial others of which are not so beneficial. They prove only that adaptation at a certain level takes place.
The following is taken from An Index to Creationist Claims

Claim CA202:

Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 4-6.

Response:



  1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
    • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
    • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
    • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
    • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
    • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
    • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
    • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
    • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
    • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
    • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
    • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
    • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
    • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
    • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
    • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
    • Speciation has been observed.
    • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

    Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

    The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Links:

Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory References:


  1. Benner, S. A., M. D. Caraco, J. M. Thomson and E. A. Gaucher. 2002. Planetary biology--paleontological, geological, and molecular histories of life. Science 296: 864-868.
  2. Mercer, John M. and V. Louise Roth. 2003. The effects of Cenozoic global change on squirrel phylogeny. Science 299: 1568-1572.
  3. Theobald, D. 2004. (see above)
 
Last edited:
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
What part of my last post would make you think I put any confidence in carbon dating?
And the fact that the Old Testament law and prophets was universal among the Jews before Christ don't need some carbon date....anybody with a brain could figure that out.
You entirely missed my point about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I’d explain it to you again, but I doubt it would do any good.

YECs are in denial about real science. You will not accept any scientific evidence, no matter how credible and if accepted by the vast majority of scientists, that does not confirm your 6,000-year-old worldview. Any scientific evidence that does confirm that something is older than around 6, 000 years old is distorted and misrepresented and then rejected.

What scientific evidence would you accept?

If Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) holds a press conference when he is released from prison and introduces Noah who says that the world is around 6,000 years old, the flood was global, and dinosaurs were on the ark, you would believe that right?

Of course, you would have Noah carbon-14 dated to prove it wasn’t really Russell Crow playing Noah in the movie Noah, right?

And then you would say carbon-14 dating proves Noah is very very old (a whole lot older than Russell Crowe or any other living human) and so he must be real, right?

Actually, I suspect we are going to get a story like this from Ken Ham about dinosaurs soon. He says he is going to rock the world and prove that a dinosaur fossil is thousands rather than millions of years old.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
You entirely missed my point about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I’d explain it to you again, but I doubt it would do any good.
Carbon dating is an irrelevance as far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned. We know their approximate date on the basis of their provenance, and especially because we know who hid them and when..
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
Au contrair mon ami. Evolution is a fact. Life on this planet has changed quite dramatically over time. That is an observable fact.
No it is not an observable fact. it is guesswork based on selective fossils. no one has ever observed evolution in process. or ever will do so. change is taking place all the time. that is not evolution,
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Carbon dating is an irrelevance as far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned. We know their approximate date on the basis of their provenance, and especially because we know who hid them and when..
Really?

So who hid them and when?

How do you know with reasonable certainty the who and the when?

Does who hid the manuscripts and when answer the question of how old the manuscripts are?
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
Really?

So who hid them and when?

How do you know with reasonable certainty the who and the when?

Does who hid the manuscripts and when answer the question of how old the manuscripts are?
they left as many clues as we could wish for. They were certainly NOT written after they hid them LOL
 
Mar 21, 2015
643
4
0
I guess we've strayed a bit by getting onto the Dead Sea Scrolls but .....

anybody who might like to ponder a very different perspective on the Scrolls might find interesting a tome called
"Jesus the Man" by Professor Barbara Thiering
Australian nonfiction writer, historian, theologian, and Biblical exegete specialising in the origins of the early Christian Church ,,,,


Thiering graduated in 1952 from the
University of Sydney with First Class Honours in Modern Languages .....
She obtained an
externalB.D. degree from the University of London, a M.Th. degree from Melbourne College of Divinity, and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Sydney in 1973.

 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Carbon dating is an irrelevance as far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned. We know their approximate date on the basis of their provenance, and especially because we know who hid them and when..
You make ridiculous statements and then you refuse to back them up with any sources other than your imagination.

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating of the Great Isaiah Scroll is confirmed by other dating methods.

Do you or anybody else want to dispute that?

Dispute it with some sort of credible evidence of course.

The who hid the DSS appears to a matter of considerable controversy to me.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
Do you accept the carbon dating of the Great Isaiah Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

That gives a date a couple hundred years before Christ?

The Book of Isaiah that contains Messianic prophecies.

And for the first time we can prove those Messianic prophecies were written before Christ walked the Earth via a manuscript that can be dated before He did.
Nope. I do not trust C14 dating for anything including the dead sea scrolls.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
Really?

So who hid them and when?

How do you know with reasonable certainty the who and the when?

Does who hid the manuscripts and when answer the question of how old the manuscripts are?
Uh, let's apply the same questions to the fossil remains of dinos...

How were they buried and when? You have any eyewitnesses?

Do you know with reasonable certainty how and when?

Do the fossils tell you anything more than the creature is dead? Do they come with a date stamped on them?
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
Nuclear physics ---MSc, 1969
So, you are an expert in the field of radiometric dating?

Mechanical engineering here, doesn't qualify me to build bridges, skyscrapers or airplanes. My field of expertise is in pumps and piping in the pulp and paper industry.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
I am both a scientist and a Christian and I find no contradictions in that. I understand carbon dating and the theory of evolution and the big bang theory and the massive evidence that supports them but that in no way invalidates my Christianity.
So, the scriptures are not correct about origins and God's claim of being the Creator by special creation is false but you follow Him anyway? A Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ is the Creator...

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.