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.
G
JackH:
Were you referring to this? :
Is this the "challenge" that you referred to? :
The moon landings were staged as propoganda for the Russians because of the "Space Race" - also, for the "benefit" of the American people. There are many past 'events' - including several "bombings", plane crashes, ... - and 9/11 - that were "fomented" by - not the U.S. government per se - but the "shadow government" or "government within the government" ( i.e., the illuminati ) - whose presence is in [ nearly ] every government on earth.
Were you referring to this? :
You do realize, don't you, that - in actuality - we have not yet been to the moon...?
Let me ask you a question...
Modern shuttle technology is 1000 times more advanced than what we supposedly went to the moon with...
If we actually went to the moon ~30 years ago -- why are we now not going to the moon every day in a shuttle...???
Why is it that we have never made any trips in a shuttle beyond the space station...???
Think about it...
Let me ask you a question...
Modern shuttle technology is 1000 times more advanced than what we supposedly went to the moon with...
If we actually went to the moon ~30 years ago -- why are we now not going to the moon every day in a shuttle...???
Why is it that we have never made any trips in a shuttle beyond the space station...???
Think about it...
The moon landings were staged as propoganda for the Russians because of the "Space Race" - also, for the "benefit" of the American people. There are many past 'events' - including several "bombings", plane crashes, ... - and 9/11 - that were "fomented" by - not the U.S. government per se - but the "shadow government" or "government within the government" ( i.e., the illuminati ) - whose presence is in [ nearly ] every government on earth.
You have yet to explain anything.
You assert....but never explain.
How so?
The speed of light is an elementary example.
Einstein's General & Special Relativity (the most proven principles in ALL of physics - even more proven than the laws of gravity) mandate that the speed of light has never changed, and thus Universe distances are of great age. This same constant speed of light is used to gauge the distance to the moon to within mm for space travel.
Accuracy is not what you deny....you are trying to correlate your YEC theology with a date...so you reject one in favor of the other...
A 2 year old cannot be dated?
How so?
What if -- just - what if -- you one day discover that "that science" did not actually put man on the moon...??? Then what? Who lied? And, what else have they lied about?
If YOU can convince me (or anyone here) that man NEVER walked on the moon, then hats-off to you!
You have a tall task ahead of you...roflol!!!
Next...you are going to tell us that man has NEVER actually ridden in the automobile...in fact, it hasn't even been invented yet!
Gary is jacked.
The onus is on you....as YOU are the only one in denial.
Gary, do you think the internet has been invented yet...and is it evil?
It would be a complete waste of my time to try to convince anyone of anything who has already convinced themselves of the impossibility of it... ( i.e. - their mind is closed and locked and sealed )
And --- the onus is on you - to prove that it did actually occur...
And --- the onus is on you - to prove that it did actually occur...
The onus is on you....as YOU are the only one in denial.
Gary, do you think the internet has been invented yet...and is it evil?
G
Re: Gary is jacked.
Your thinking is skewed. Ordinary logic dictates, by default, that the base-level "starting point" of any assumption to be proven is 'zero'. It is illogical to assume the existance of something, and demand from another to prove that it does not exist ( or, never existed ); rather, the "proof" must be in that it does ( or , did ) exist. ( i.e., that something actually occurred )
I deny that we have been to pluto. Are you saying that it is up to me to prove that we have not been there?
Your thinking is skewed. Ordinary logic dictates, by default, that the base-level "starting point" of any assumption to be proven is 'zero'. It is illogical to assume the existance of something, and demand from another to prove that it does not exist ( or, never existed ); rather, the "proof" must be in that it does ( or , did ) exist. ( i.e., that something actually occurred )
I deny that we have been to pluto. Are you saying that it is up to me to prove that we have not been there?
Re: Gary is jacked.
If you had any evidence for your denial, then you would have already presented it.
You have nothing.
Your thinking is skewed. Ordinary logic dictates, by default, that the base-level "starting point" of any assumption to be proven is 'zero'. It is illogical to assume the existance of something, and demand from another to prove that it does not exist ( or, never existed ); rather, the "proof" must be in that it does ( or , did ) exist. ( i.e., that something actually occurred )
I deny that we have been to pluto. Are you saying that it is up to me to prove that we have not been there?
I deny that we have been to pluto. Are you saying that it is up to me to prove that we have not been there?
If you had any evidence for your denial, then you would have already presented it.
You have nothing.
Ok, I haven't seen anyone actually define theory, in science, so here it is:
via PowerPoint slide on very basic, fundamental (secular, 'those on the outside') science.
I do not mean to enter the debate, as I can already hear "what repeated testing" and such. Instead of demanding each other for sources, why not google it - and actually read from sites that disagree with your views? Actually know what you are refuting. I am speaking to both sides.
"Only the most stupid people judge what they do not know." Anthony Bloom
via PowerPoint slide on very basic, fundamental (secular, 'those on the outside') science.
I do not mean to enter the debate, as I can already hear "what repeated testing" and such. Instead of demanding each other for sources, why not google it - and actually read from sites that disagree with your views? Actually know what you are refuting. I am speaking to both sides.
"Only the most stupid people judge what they do not know." Anthony Bloom
Last edited:
G
Re: Gary is a joke...
I do not respond to some posts because I do not want to participate in the "mud-slinging" and "insulting" that often breaks out in a thread where I am only attempting to add to the discussion. I may say something that is intended to be thought-provoking, but usually try to stay on the more considerate side of the line that separates intelligent and thoughtful discussion from that which is shallow and reactionary.
What I first wanted to say to Bowman's post ( above ) was something like:
"Yes -- that is correct -- only in your imagination."
And, following the same "pattern" as one of my previous posts, I would have wanted to add:
"Deal with your ignorance..."
However -- this is where I draw the line -- because - this kind of back-and-forth insult-throwing is needless - as well as counter-productive to having an intelligent discussion.
It is never my intent to insult anyone on here.
If I thought someone on here was [ entirely ] 'ignorant' -- why would I want to engage them in [ what should be ] intelligent discussion?
Rather -- it is because I believe that others are capable of reasoning that I engage them in [ what should be ] intelligent discussion.
However -- when other people cross this line - and demonstrate that their state-of-mind is too 'shallow' and 'reactionary' to handle intelligent discussion -- I tend to "write them off" ( at least temporarily, in a particular thread, about a particular topic ) - i.e. - "ignore them for now" ( which I am now going to do regarding Bowman ) - until the "offending" person "simmers down" and starts being 'respectable'...
( By the way -- I do not use the 'Ignore' feature on the board. I have never used it to "put someone on ignore"... )
As a rule, I do not "back off when challenged" -- i am not afraid to state what I believe. More often, it is a matter of not having the time - or, not having the time "right now"...
What I first wanted to say to Bowman's post ( above ) was something like:
"Yes -- that is correct -- only in your imagination."
And, following the same "pattern" as one of my previous posts, I would have wanted to add:
"Deal with your ignorance..."
However -- this is where I draw the line -- because - this kind of back-and-forth insult-throwing is needless - as well as counter-productive to having an intelligent discussion.
It is never my intent to insult anyone on here.
If I thought someone on here was [ entirely ] 'ignorant' -- why would I want to engage them in [ what should be ] intelligent discussion?
Rather -- it is because I believe that others are capable of reasoning that I engage them in [ what should be ] intelligent discussion.
However -- when other people cross this line - and demonstrate that their state-of-mind is too 'shallow' and 'reactionary' to handle intelligent discussion -- I tend to "write them off" ( at least temporarily, in a particular thread, about a particular topic ) - i.e. - "ignore them for now" ( which I am now going to do regarding Bowman ) - until the "offending" person "simmers down" and starts being 'respectable'...
( By the way -- I do not use the 'Ignore' feature on the board. I have never used it to "put someone on ignore"... )