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

[JesusIsAll]

Why are you trying to waste my time?

Maybe because you give the appearance of having nothing but time to waste, trolling a Christian message board. I don't know, but maybe you haven't previously clarified this contradiction, and now people will be sparing of your valuable time. I do feel your pain, I mean, there is insufficient time to read you. This does raise the question as to why, valuing time, you write that stuff, but suppose this another matter. Are there any forums on the web, with a strong sense of irony, your precious time may be better suited to?

 

[kodiak]

That was macro evolution on a molecular level lol.
a change in the sequence composition of cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins over long periods of time.

Unless that's wrong and that's just there theory of it

more in depth than that... how does it do it....they can explain how microevolution happens...when I say at a molecular level, I mean explain exactly how it does it using chemistry...

 

[Origin]

more in depth than that... how does it do it....they can explain how microevolution happens...when I say at a molecular level, I mean explain exactly how it does it using chemistry...

I'll get back you in a year. I don't know all the chemical formulas that make up protien, blood, etc etc etc.

 

[kodiak]

Explaining using chemistry .. I could but I'm lazy, I like keeping my post short. Its just basic gene selection from parents. Dad skin color is (Bb) Mom is (Yy) and you a 're born with (By) you moves to a place with little Sun your proteins in your DNA can change so on and so on. 100 years later everybody is( yy) from your family. Lol then somebody can move to a place with a lot of sun and get there proteins back too Bb over some century's . there's some basics for ya

That was macro evolution on a molecular level lol.
a change in the sequence composition of cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins over long periods of time.

Unless that's wrong and that's just there theory of it

I'll get back you in a year. I don't know all the chemical formulas that make up protien, blood, etc etc etc.

I think you are getting micro and macro evolution confused....microevolution is within a species....macro transcends the boundaries of species....your first post was discussing micro evolution.....macro is what scientists rely on for evolution...I think it will take a lot longer than a year to find an explanation for macro evolution.....

 

[Origin]

I think you are getting micro and macro evolution confused....microevolution is within a species....macro transcends the boundaries of species....your first post was discussing micro evolution.....macro is what scientists rely on for evolution...I think it will take a lot longer than a year to find an explanation for macro evolution.....

If you want it on a molecular level that consist of what?

 

[kodiak]

If you want it on a molecular level that consist of what?

how the molecules change and what causes them to do it. How and where molecules are built in this macro-evolution.

 

[JackH]

Seriously, if you can't explain how they know the earth is billions of years old, why do you believe it? You know the truth, that is why you refuse to answer how we know the earth is billions of years old....This science is not credible and you know for a fact that they use circular reasoning.

.

Okay, you tell me how you know the earth is 6,000 years old.

I want to see how you do it without employing circular reasoning or any other logical fallacies so I make sure I answer how I know the earth is billions of years old the same way.

I'm sure you understand that "The earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old" will be an unacceptable answer, according to you.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Worse, it's an ethnicist ("racist" if you will, a word I don't use because there is only one race) theory. American and European anthropologists suffering from terminal bigotry rushed to endorse Darwinism because it gave them a biological/genetic basis for condoning slavery and the continuance of societal mores treating the black man and other ethnicities as inferior. That is the "inconvenient truth" Darwinists do their level best to disprove or deny.

"Darwin’s book is now simply referred to as the 'Origin of Species,' but the second half of original title, written not for a scientific audience, but the general public, was, 'For the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' Darwin proposed that all living things are connected by common descent from a single, original organism. According to [Niles Eldridge, who was the curator of the American Museum of Natural History and a renowned evolutionist - See more at: http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/darwins_racists.html#sthash.lOd1ztMl.dpuf}

Eldridge and many others, Darwin’s identification of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is what made him one the most renowned scientists of history. Defined as a process that naturally selects individuals that have the best chance of surviving due to evolved advantages, it suggests that any variation “to the least degree” not beneficial would be “rigidly destroyed.” Although Darwin never actually applied his theory to mankind in the Origin of Species, such implications certainly included man, as the word “Races” (which he used interchangeably with “species”) used in the original title indicates."

-- Darwin's Racists- Creation Studies Institute


​

Sounds racist to me... with a hint of eugenics as well..your facts are falling on deaf ears though it seems, people are stubborn and not open to facts, I've asked an evolutionist, where's the in between ape man, why aren't we seeing this " evolving " today... I see ape and I see man, nothing in between, but they swear by this..smh, the excuses I get are " it takes millions of years " or we killed them off, or we have evolved out of their Eco-system... this is just not rational thinking to me, and then at the end of it they say we have 98% of the same DNA .. Then I say we also have 50% of the same DNA as bananas ???are we half bananas?

We can not see it or test it, I'm sure there are parts of it true as with micro, that can be tested, but if they want to believe great uncle bob was a ape man... Shrugs, I can't help that.. Facts are there readily available, as your displaying, thanks, God bless

ps..FREE KENT HOVIND

 

[jamie26301]

Koiak, I'll bite.

With the rate at which the universe is expanding (observable, calculated mathematically), and given calculations we have of its size presently, it is reasonable to assume it was once very small, as it is expanding. Calculating the rate it's expanding, we get the figures we have.

The theories of stars bursting, how the earth formed and the other planets, and the beginning of the universe is drawn from observing the same things elsewhere in space.

That's the best I can do from memory. The calculation is not some number pulled from the air.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Uhm you know evolution happens everyday

So - cats are becoming not cats, and dogs are becoming not dogs

Bait and switch fallacy - learn to apply logic please

 

[jamie26301]

We don't know exactly what prompted the explosion. So having questions makes it false? What we do know is the farther back in time you go, beyond the formation of the earth, it's like the laws as we know them break down.

A good artist can take a blank canvas and create something beautiful. The secular understanding applied to creation is that God brought order from choas. Michelangelo's David was a decarded project - it wasn't a clean stone. I liken it to that - taking a marred mess and making it beautiful.

But I can't say where the messed up canvas comes from. I think what really upsets me about this movement is there is pressure on evolutionist to prove their evil theories. And it is "Aha, you can't prove it so you made it up!" But to turn this back around and request them to prove their stance by the same standard, they can't do it - they're right because they say so.


Seriously y'all, if you haven't watch the Ham/Bye debate, watch it. Seriously.

 

[Angela53510]

Jack, I was thinking about you last night. I prayed that the eyes of your heart would be opened.

You are obsessed with proving evolution. Well, most here would disagree with you. But the bigger problem, is that you NEVER post on the Bible, you never glorify God. I had to ask you if you believed in Jesus Christ as your Saviour, because it is not evident in any of your posts.

I am not the judge of your salvation, but what do you think Jesus thinks of someone who spends all his time on-line trying to prove evolution is right? Instead of actually discussing the Bible, talking about his relationship with God, encouraging others who are struggling, etc. etc.

I will continue to pray that you return to your first love. Because from what I see, it seems like your first love is science and evolution, not God.

 

[Angela53510]

Further, as far as your "vaunted" peer reviewed journals containing the "truth" about evolution, my experience studying science for my undergrad really enlightened me to the fact that these scientists start with an hypothesis, and then see if it is correct. Sometimes it is not, and that is published. Sometimes it seems to be right, but later is shown to be incorrect.

Case in point - at the end of my first year, in Biology, we had been studying respiration in the cell and photosynthesis. We were given complex diagrams of the processes, chemical equations and told to memorize them for the final.

A week before the final, the prof comes into the class and says that the latest scientific publications show that the diagrams and chemical equations we were given were in fact wrong. So we were given new sheets of diagrams and equations, for the final a week later.

That was the final nail in the scientific coffin for me. I realized the truth was on-going in science, not fixed. Which is not a problem at all, if you are not using science as the ultimate authority. People study, and they learn new things about science, which they publish. Those things stand until someone else finds a different "truth."

And of course, there really is no "truth" in science, just hypotheses correlated to a high degree statistically. Till someone corrects it.

Which is all to say that I have studied and read the Bible yearly since only a month after that prof changed the diagrams on us. Because that is when I finally bowed the knee to Jesus, when he called me out of darkness. I have found that God's Word does not change, and it is true, unlike changable science.

As for theology, you have never answered the question I have posed on several occasions.

"If there is no first Adam, why did Paul call Jesus the second Adam?" You are not just calling into question the opening chapters of Genesis, but the whole New Testament.

"45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." 1 Cor. 15:45-49

 

[kodiak]

We don't know exactly what prompted the explosion. So having questions makes it false? What we do know is the farther back in time you go, beyond the formation of the earth, it's like the laws as we know them break down.

A good artist can take a blank canvas and create something beautiful. The secular understanding applied to creation is that God brought order from choas. Michelangelo's David was a decarded project - it wasn't a clean stone. I liken it to that - taking a marred mess and making it beautiful.

But I can't say where the messed up canvas comes from. I think what really upsets me about this movement is there is pressure on evolutionist to prove their evil theories. And it is "Aha, you can't prove it so you made it up!" But to turn this back around and request them to prove their stance by the same standard, they can't do it - they're right because they say so.


Seriously y'all, if you haven't watch the Ham/Bye debate, watch it. Seriously.

Koiak, I'll bite.

With the rate at which the universe is expanding (observable, calculated mathematically), and given calculations we have of its size presently, it is reasonable to assume it was once very small, as it is expanding. Calculating the rate it's expanding, we get the figures we have.

The theories of stars bursting, how the earth formed and the other planets, and the beginning of the universe is drawn from observing the same things elsewhere in space.

That's the best I can do from memory. The calculation is not some number pulled from the air.

So how do we know it has always been expanding? How do we know it has always been a steady rate? This is a new concept to me....I have never seen a scientist use this way to explain it before....I am used to the dating of the oldest rock on the earth explanation. The reason I am showing the problems in evolution is because of the attitude of evolutionists that say we don't know what we are talking about. I am not trying to attack you, just trying to clear up the misconceptions that "just because you don't believe in evolution means you are stupid." We have a logical reason to not believe evolution, just like you all have a logical reason to believe evolution. I will leave you all with an article from a very well known chemist who actually makes molecules. It is interesting to read. I recommend reading the whole article.

 

[JackH]

Sounds racist to me... with a hint of eugenics as well..your facts are falling on deaf ears though it seems, people are stubborn and not open to facts, I've asked an evolutionist, where's the in between ape man, why aren't we seeing this " evolving " today... I see ape and I see man, nothing in between, but they swear by this..smh, the excuses I get are " it takes millions of years " or we killed them off, or we have evolved out of their Eco-system... this is just not rational thinking to me, and then at the end of it they say we have 98% of the same DNA .. Then I say we also have 50% of the same DNA as bananas ???are we half bananas?

We can not see it or test it, I'm sure there are parts of it true as with micro, that can be tested, but if they want to believe great uncle bob was a ape man... Shrugs, I can't help that.. Facts are there readily available, as your displaying, thanks, God bless

ps..FREE KENT HOVIND

Do you consider this statement to be racist:

"Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

How about you, Jimbone, who 'Liked" the post I quoted.

How about you, Viligant_Warrior, who stared this racism business?

 

[JackH]

I am used to the dating of the oldest rock on the earth explanation. The reason I am showing the problems in evolution

The age of the earth and evolution are two distinct issues.

Scientists were attempting to determine the age of the earth long before Darwin.

Darwin wasn't why 4004 BC as the date of the creation of the world was taken out of the King James Bible.

 

[kaylagrl]

Can both be true?

Appreciate if you'd explain how. Thanks.

 

[Angela53510]

One more try, Jack, since you keep side stepping this very important issue.

As for theology, you have never answered the question I have posed on several occasions.

"If there is no first Adam, why did Paul call Jesus the second Adam?" You are not just calling into question the opening chapters of Genesis, but the whole New Testament.

"45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." 1 Cor. 15:45-49

 

[Tintin]

I think a better title for this thread would be: "Is Jack's Unhealthy Obsession with Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a Total Joke?"

 

[JackH]

I think a better title for this thread would be: "Is Jack's Unhealthy Obsession with Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a Total Joke?"

When you YEC cult members quit screaming "Free Kent Hovind!" then I will quit telling the truth about him.