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

[Viligant_Warrior]

What you were actually saying is that fossil footprints proved that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

I replied to you debunking that nonsense.

No, you posted an easily accessible link that anyone could find, and my guess is you couldn't mount a good pro-evolution argument on your own. But whatever ...

But your avatar brings to mind another question.

Isn't Ben Carson a 7th-Day Adventist? And he says the world is around 6,000 years old?

And YECs get much of their pseudoscience from 7th-Day Adventists?

And 7th-Day Adventists get totally bashed in these forums?

Something doesn't jive here.

Yeah, that's your logical fallacy "attack-the-messenger" argument not jibing <-- actual, correct word to match the intent of your sentence.

And you want to pretend you can argue evolution when you can't even select the right word for a post that was meant to come off intellectually superior to me and everyone else who holds to creationist theory? And when, to appear above the intellectual level of those with whom you disagree, you have no better tool to use other than numerous logical fallacies?

You'd have been better off staying wherever you've been for nearly two weeks, since that's how long this thread had been dead before you showed up again Sunday to crank up your rant again.

 

[JackH]

No, you posted an easily accessible link that anyone could find, and my guess is you couldn't mount a good pro-evolution argument on your own. But whatever ...

Are you still saying that there is fossil footprint evidence that proves that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?

I thought you gave up on that one.

 

[kodiak]

Been there, done that.

It looks to me like Werhner von Braun's views are those of an Old Earth Creationist.

Like Bowman's, it would appear to me.

And unlike those of a YEC such as yourself and most of those posting on this thread.

No doubt Bowman will send you a thank you note for supporting his position, even though you had no intention of doing so.

good, then you saw the quote where we should not be only taught one thing. I believe what I believe. You need to respect that others have opinions. I am not a hovind fan, but I think we should be treating others how we want to be treated and with love.
Since this is in the Bible discussion forum, what Bible version do you read?

 

[popeye]

good, then you saw the quote where we should not be only taught one thing. I believe what I believe. You need to respect that others have opinions. I am not a hovind fan, but I think we should be treating others how we want to be treated and with love.
Since this is in the Bible discussion forum, what Bible version do you read?

Wonder if he realizes the author is Y.E.???
Yikes,!!!!!
He was also arrested and tried,and proven by the O.E. as a heretic and a criminal.

Guess that is why the schools threw away that particular book in favor of the "truth"

 

[kodiak]

Wonder if he realizes the author is Y.E.???
Yikes,!!!!!
He was also arrested and tried,and proven by the O.E. as a heretic and a criminal.

Guess that is why the schools threw away that particular book in favor of the "truth"

I have never heard of hovind before all of this. Maybe as I learn more, I will become a fan, but right now I don't know much about him.

 

[popeye]

I have never heard of hovind before all of this. Maybe as I learn more, I will become a fan, but right now I don't know much about him.

The "book" is the bible
The 'author" is God/Jesus (Y.E.)

Jack is kinda known for attacking the messenger (God)

 

[JackH]

Yeah, that's your logical fallacy

You'd have been better off staying wherever you've been for nearly two weeks, since that's how long this thread had been dead before you showed up again Sunday to crank up your rant again.

What are you talking about?

There have been posts on this thread every day since I started it.

You just make things up.

You begged the questions, Fallacy Man.

Is your hero Ben Carson a YEC, and a 7-Day Adventist?

Do YECs posting on this forum get much of their pseudoscience on the global flood et al from 7th-Day Adventists? Even though most of them probably don't even know it.

Do some of those same YECs bash 7th-Day Adventists in these forums?

I'll add a few more questions:

Does what a person on the ticket believes about the bible matter?

The last YEC on the ticket gave us Obama.

Thank you very much.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

What are you talking about?

There have been posts on this thread every day since I started it.

You just make things up.

You begged the questions, Fallacy Man.

Is your hero Ben Carson a YEC, and a 7-Day Adventist?

Do YECs posting on this forum get much of their pseudoscience on the global flood et al from 7th-Day Adventists? Even though most of them probably don't even know it.

Do some of those same YECs bash 7th-Day Adventists in these forums?

I'll add a few more questions:

Does what a person on the ticket believes about the bible matter?

The last YEC on the ticket gave us Obama.

Thank you very much.

I've got one for you: What does any of this gibberish have to do with Kent Hovind? Or have you forgotten that is the title of the thread that you started? What does Dr. Carson's view -- and yes, he is Adventist, and I don't know if he is YEC or not -- have to do with Hovind being a "total joke"?

You seem to have a very difficult time staying on topic, and I have yet to see you actually mount a lucid, realistic argument for evolution. All I see you do is attack and attempt (unsuccessfully) to tear down those of us who embrace Creation theory.

You have no credibility. All you have is a vitriolic attitude. It's like having a conversation with the Tazmanian Devil, only funnier.

 

[JackH]

I've got one for you: What does any of this gibberish have to do with Kent Hovind? Or have you forgotten that is the title of the thread that you started? What does Dr. Carson's view -- and yes, he is Adventist, and I don't know if he is YEC or not -- have to do with Hovind being a "total joke"?

You seem to have a very difficult time staying on topic, and I have yet to see you actually mount a lucid, realistic argument for evolution. All I see you do is attack and attempt (unsuccessfully) to tear down those of us who embrace Creation theory.

You have no credibility. All you have is a vitriolic attitude. It's like having a conversation with the Tazmanian Devil, only funnier.

You don't know if Ben Carson is a YEC or not?

You don't care what your candidate, based upon your avatar, thinks about an issue that seems to be important to you?

LOL.

Yes, I have said very little about evolution. Like I said, kodiak brought it up before I ever did on this thread.

For a very good reason.

Anybody who does not understand that the world is billions of years old and not 6,000, that dinosaurs did not coexist with humans, and that there was not a global flood around 4,500 BC has no hope of understanding evolution.

Now, where is your "proof" that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?

The link you provided before has been debunked.

You have no evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, because there isn't any.

 

[JackH]

I've got one for you: What does any of this gibberish have to do with Kent Hovind? Or have you forgotten that is the title of the thread that you started? What does Dr. Carson's view -- and yes, he is Adventist, and I don't know if he is YEC or not -- have to do with Hovind being a "total joke"?

Let me explain the connection to you.

When you hear somebody say something that does not ring true to you, what do you do?

One of the things you might do, at least I do, is to determine who agrees with this person, and why.

If somebody whose opinion you respect agrees with the person whose story you question, it might give you pause.

You appear to be big on Fox News, if I am reading your comments on the Christian News Forum.

Who over there do you think gets it mostly right?

Like top three.

 

[JackH]

Since this is in the Bible discussion forum, what Bible version do you read?

I have a Zondervan NASB Study Bible and Nelson NKJV Study Bible. Both of those have commentary, word studies, and such. I have a Companion Bible, which is Authorized Version of 1611, with 198 Appendixes. I have a Strong's, Vines Expository Dictionary, and Smith's Bible Dictionary. I have several other KJVs, including a big old one that is in storage. That one is too big and bulky for everyday use and the pages are tattered.

Now here's something interesting:

The big old KJV has the date 4004 BC printed next to the verses.

That date, in many KJVs for many years, has been taken out of those published now for the most part.

The chronology in my NASB goes back to the time of Abraham, not to the time of Adam.

Now, why do you think that the date 4004 BC was taken out of most bibles?

Hint: Lack of credibility.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

You don't know if Ben Carson is a YEC or not?

You don't care what your candidate, based upon your avatar, thinks about an issue that seems to be important to you?

LOL.

Again, not even close to being germane to the original purpose of your thread.

Yes, I have said very little about evolution. Like I said, kodiak brought it up before I ever did on this thread.

For a very good reason.

Anybody who does not understand that the world is billions of years old and not 6,000, that dinosaurs did not coexist with humans, and that there was not a global flood around 4,500 BC has no hope of understanding evolution.

Now it's my turn to "LOL." The fact that evolution is based on a billions-of-years-old universe -- otherwise it is impossible -- demands you defend evolution and its premise. Therefore, your inability -- yes, I said "inability," not unwillingness -- to adequately defend evolution makes your starting this thread nothing more than trolling. Which you are no better at than discussing the subject rationally and reasonably.

Now, where is your "proof" that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?

The link you provided before has been debunked.

You have no evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, because there isn't any.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the original subject of your thread. And which also is a false statement, because the linked webpage you claim debunks coexistence is itself nothing more than an opinion, not facts, not proof. That is all this discussion will ever be, because neither side can prove it's position. That's why they are both called "theories."

And please don't use that statement as an excuse to return to the tired old argument that theories are just ideas that describe a concept and which stand as "proof" until they are disproven. The scientific community that jealously guards the concept of evolution is too elitist and arrogant to admit evolution is their religion rather than their science, and will never accept any contradiction to their ideas as having validity, despite the mathematical impossibility of evolution being true.

 

[JackH]

The fact that evolution is based on a billions-of-years-old universe

Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not there was a global flood around 4,500 years ago, right?

Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not dinosaurs existed on this earth around 4,500 years ago, right?

Do you agree with those two statements?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not there was a global flood around 4,500 years ago, right?

Wrong. And the question is an indication that you do not even begin to understand what Creationist theory is about. The Flood provides the alternate explanation for all that we see in the Earth's geology and topography, even it's biology, today. Evolution is the counter-explanation, and therefore cannot be irrelevant to the concept of a global flood.

Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not dinosaurs existed on this earth around 4,500 years ago, right?

Wrong. Creationist theory explains the co-existence of the flora and fauna evolutionists credit to different eras, so how could evolution be irrelevant to such a discussion?

Do you agree with those two statements?

Obviously not.

 

[JackH]

The fact that evolution is based on a billions-of-years-old universe -- otherwise it is impossible -- demands you defend evolution and its premise.

Do Old Earth Creationists like Werhner von Braun, Hugh Ross, and Bowman (who has posted on this thread) have to defend evolution?

 

[jamie26301]

The 4004 BC date of Creation has been brought frequently, and I'm really curious.

Here is a very interesting, and I think balanced article by a Canadian journalist:

The man who dated Creation at Oct. 23, 4004 BC - The Globe and Mail

He notes that Usshur is unfairly picked on, because Newton himself dated Creation at 4000 BC. He also notes how extordionarily brilliant this scholar was, and says that in his massive volume chronologing every major event up to 70 AD as compiled with both secular/pagan and religious sources - his footnotes contains references to far more secular sources than religious. And he was actually very accurate by today's estimates of the birth of Christ.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Do Old Earth Creationists like Werhner von Braun, Hugh Ross, and Bowman (who has posted on this thread) have to defend evolution?

Just as they van Braun had to prove space flight is possible by actually demonstrating it, yes, they have to defend it. So do you, if you want to continue the discussion.

 

[kodiak]

I have a Zondervan NASB Study Bible and Nelson NKJV Study Bible. Both of those have commentary, word studies, and such. I have a Companion Bible, which is Authorized Version of 1611, with 198 Appendixes. I have a Strong's, Vines Expository Dictionary, and Smith's Bible Dictionary. I have several other KJVs, including a big old one that is in storage. That one is too big and bulky for everyday use and the pages are tattered.

Now here's something interesting:

The big old KJV has the date 4004 BC printed next to the verses.

That date, in many KJVs for many years, has been taken out of those published now for the most part.

The chronology in my NASB goes back to the time of Abraham, not to the time of Adam.

Now, why do you think that the date 4004 BC was taken out of most bibles?

Hint: Lack of credibility.

Interesting, you have a lot of Bibles.Your NASB doesn't have Genesis 5? Many have studied the Bible and used different versions. This along with some careful study of multiple verses to get certain dates has caused many different numbers to come up. It can range from 3836 B.C. to 5501 B.C. Although 4004 B.C. may be wrong, it just shows that it is in the correct range, if you view the Bible as literal. One of the areas they have to be careful with is on Terah's age when Abraham was born.
They have used both the Masoretic and the Septuagint in this range.
I don't really see how this can be wrong unless the Bible is not talking literal days. But then that discredits the rest of the verses that discuss days, including the resurrection of Christ. But we have other sources that indicate it was actually 3 days. Can you please explain how the Bible can view man's age of the earth as correct? I fail to see this, so can you please explain it?

 

[JackH]

Just as they van Braun had to prove space flight is possible by actually demonstrating it, yes, they have to defend it. So do you, if you want to continue the discussion.

I'll continue the discussion whether you participate or not.

Old Earth Creationists view evolution much the same as you do.

Why would they have to defend evolution?

Old Earth Creationists do an excellent job of arguing old earth vs. young without mentioning evolution.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I'll continue the discussion whether you participate or not.

Old Earth Creationists view evolution much the same as you do.

Why would they have to defend evolution?

Old Earth Creationists do an excellent job of arguing old earth vs. young without mentioning evolution.

Then you don't understand what they are saying, because they defend a process under which God would never act. It isn't in His nature. They claim He started everything in motion, then took His hands off the process and "evolution" -- regardless of what they actually call it, including calling it "evolution" -- is what happened afterward, either with or without His guidance.

Such a concept is not in God's nature. God holds the universe in place, functioning, interacting, relating. There is nothing He does not have foreknowledge of and anticipate, though He does allow some things -- under the free will of man -- to transpire without direct interference.

But otherwise, particularly in relationship to how the universe functions, according to the rules of what we call "physics" which He established -- He is not the "hands off" God that their theory requires.