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.
R
kent hovind is worse than a joke...he is a criminal and a fraud and a false teacher... he is an embarrassment to legitimate biblical creation scientists who have -real- doctorates and pay their taxes and actually believe what the bible teaches...
so i am just going to sit and watch the hovind cultists and evolutionists discredit each other in this thread
so i am just going to sit and watch the hovind cultists and evolutionists discredit each other in this thread
R
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...
there are two very obvious reasons why they didn't use the space shuttle for daily trips to the moon... one is that the space shuttle was designed specifically for missions in low earth orbit...after all they officially called the winged part of the shuttle the 'orbiter'... the other reason is that the space shuttle cost about half a billion dollars per flight...one of the major criticisms of the shuttle program was actually that its expense made regular human space travel -less- feasible...
also the space shuttle actually -has- gone beyond the space station...they used to use the space shuttle to maintain the hubble space telescope which is almost twice as far out as the space station...
finally you can establish that the apollo astronauts actually were on the moon by watching the footage of the astronauts and figuring the falling acceleration of any objects they dropped on the moon...the acceleration is totally different from the acceleration of falling objects on earth...and it matches the gravitational acceleration on the moon to well within the margin of error...
Of course, when you YECs use Karl Popper as a talking point, you always somehow neglect to mention that he recanted his statement of nonfalsifiability:
"I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection." (Karl Popper, Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status, Miller, p241-243)
"I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection." (Karl Popper, Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status, Miller, p241-243)
So nobody has any comment on whether this statement I quoted is racist?
That's funny.
There sure were people quite willing to blame racism on evolution. And reference a source that blamed the holocaust on evolution.
The quote above is from a book by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. He also blamed evolution for racism. You may remember Morris as the father of nonsensical global flood geology.
That's funny.
There sure were people quite willing to blame racism on evolution. And reference a source that blamed the holocaust on evolution.
The quote above is from a book by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. He also blamed evolution for racism. You may remember Morris as the father of nonsensical global flood geology.
G
It was intended to be thought-provoking, not some kind of 'proof'...
The words "1000 times more advanced" and "every day" were bolded for emphasis -- not because I believe that modern shuttle technology is exactly 1000 times more advanced than before, or that we should be making trips to the moon every day.
As for what you say in the quote bubble above -- "okay"; nonetheless, it is moot to the point I am making -- if we had truly gone to the moon before ( ~30 years ago ) -- you could "bet your life - and feel comfortable doing it" - that we would be going again - a whole lot more often than "never since"...
Of course, you could say:
"The government is probably going to the moon, but not telling us about it."
But then - that would be a conspiracy theory -- wouldn't it...?
( HAHAHA )
The words "1000 times more advanced" and "every day" were bolded for emphasis -- not because I believe that modern shuttle technology is exactly 1000 times more advanced than before, or that we should be making trips to the moon every day.
As for what you say in the quote bubble above -- "okay"; nonetheless, it is moot to the point I am making -- if we had truly gone to the moon before ( ~30 years ago ) -- you could "bet your life - and feel comfortable doing it" - that we would be going again - a whole lot more often than "never since"...
Of course, you could say:
"The government is probably going to the moon, but not telling us about it."
But then - that would be a conspiracy theory -- wouldn't it...?
( HAHAHA
)
Horse evolution - is that the false sense that we went from 3 toes to one toe, or is it that we had flip that around and go from one toe to 3 toes (hoofs that is)
What about the peppered moth? 25 years of research, and Kettlewell only saw 2 moths naturally on the tree, that he didn't bait.
What about Lucy, how they purposely give her a human spine in order to make her stand erect? Oh and break her hips so that they are finagled in a way to show that she walked upright. Wouldn't want her pelvis to be that of an ape, where the muscle connections point her legs in a 4 legged walking position either
What about the peppered moth? 25 years of research, and Kettlewell only saw 2 moths naturally on the tree, that he didn't bait.
What about Lucy, how they purposely give her a human spine in order to make her stand erect? Oh and break her hips so that they are finagled in a way to show that she walked upright. Wouldn't want her pelvis to be that of an ape, where the muscle connections point her legs in a 4 legged walking position either
Here is a response to the Paradigm of Evolution from Judith Hooper, whose book "Of Moth's and Men - the untold story of the peppered moth" had to say in her book - so she could still get book sales.
"for the record I am not a creationist, but to be uncritical about science is to make it into dogma"
By the way - every picture of the peppered moth is a doctored photo - a fraud - explain why that's in textbooks?
"for the record I am not a creationist, but to be uncritical about science is to make it into dogma"
By the way - every picture of the peppered moth is a doctored photo - a fraud - explain why that's in textbooks?
reminds me of the failure of logic which was applied to a scientific experiment where chicken embryos had DNA changed so they grew lizard tails in order to prove they had lizard ancestors. DNA is Gods construction kit, so if you know how to manipulate DNA you can change an embryo to grow anything they like. Changing DNA of an embryo doesn't prove evolution, but this programme and the scientists involved claimed otherwise. Brainwashing if ever I saw it.
Here’s a link for any moon conspiracy enthusiasts.
“This is a total cop-out argument. Yes, 1960s technology was far inferior to what we have today… even one of our cell phones contains vastly more computing power than what was aboard the Apollo spacecraft. But the Apollo spacecraft only had to know how to do one thing: get living, breathing astronauts to the Moon and back… As far as NASA having created all the footage of the landings in a studio, it actually would have been easier at the time to just go to the Moon…
‘This, unfortunately, has more to do with the nature of politics and public interest than space technology, although the latter often becomes a casualty of the former. There’s a lot involved with the answer to this, but suffice to say after the Apollo program was closed down, the technology to send humans to the Moon was retired… As times changed, priorities (and thus budgets) changed, and NASA’s manned spaceflight program of the 60s and early 70s became a thing of the past, in some cases replaced by newer, better goals… but in some cases still not replaced at all.”
No, The Moon Landings Weren’t Faked. (And Here’s How You Can Tell.) | Lights in the Dark
GaryA, You said it was food for thought, but I’m just going to put what I had planned on writing:
We haven’t been back because the support is not there and people don’t care. In grade school, there is a fascination with this topic, and that comes naturally with being a curious child. As you start to hit junior high, and into high school, pressure from peers to be like the cool kids who carry backbacks that weight more themselves than what is actually in them, gets the best of many students. They relax their interest, or dispense it altogether.
I know I was one of them, though not because of pressure. I just had other worldlier, superficial pursuits. I didn’t start taking a serious interest in science again until years after I had to dropped out of college in 2005. Slowly through time, I began to open up to other doctrines, because I wanted to understand them. If I address what I don’t agree with, I want to understand it, unlike the several instances while visiting churches that I witness pastors willingly or not misrepresenting other doctrines. This was an issue of integrity to me. And you learn the other position not by reading WHAT THE OPPONENT says, but reading the text yourself.
And yes, Kodiak, science is not a fixed discipline – neither is psychology or sociology, which also uses scientific methods of asking questions and collecting data. It is open to change, because the data we collect changes, as we learn more and advance in tools to aid in calculations. And again, linking evolution with atheism, using this slippery slope to scientists “disproving” God, is only going to aggravate the divide, imo.
Perhaps at some point they will pose that. But as a standard, the data is published in a journal, and you may examine it yourself – in this country, or at least as it’s supposed to be, you don’t have to accept other people’s opinions or ideas. That is the whole beauty of it. You can reject the idea that gravity exists, and no one is going to throw you in prison for it (if we keep going this way however, that might be a different story concerning freedom to reject).
And isn’t the whole presumption behind a Creationist mindset or model that God can’t be disproven? “You don’t care as long as they can prove it… and what if they come out with something ‘proving’ God is not real…” Why would that concern you? Write to your newspaper, start a blog, take some public speech classes – you can’t seriously expect other people to remain silent so that you don’t have to debunk or reject anything.
Now, should the idea of God enter into science, be a part of science? You understand that by inviting a spiritual or religious flavor into a discipline that is about asking questions, testing them, testing already established assumptions… that if you can write a paper about evidence for God, then THE VERY NATURE OF THIS DISCPLINE allows others to write what they feel is evidence for His inexistence. Unintended consequences, you see.
I’m not being mean or anything, but we are not being silenced – yet. Disciplinary actions or favoritism in secular institutions, I’ve noticed in your link (I’ll comment more later). But you know why? Science has become a political thing. Why has it become a political thing? Why is stating a thesis akin to aligning to a political party?
Because the Right has pursued this in courts, relentlessly trying to adjust laws ultimately in the name of God and Creation – thus dragging science into the political sphere. The “Monkey Trial” should have settled things – it didn’t. Conservative Christians rose up, the Right saw the advantage in appealing on their behalf (to get votes, you see) and here we are.
The Left is JUST AS BAD about propaganda, if not worse these days, and spreading lies and misinformation. But the suppression here is not because of the idea itself, the suppression is because it has become a political topic and thus has consequences for a university that doesn't align with a the more favored political platform.
And Right Christians, with their consistent push for religion-inspired laws, has had a great hand in how these skeptics of evolution are treated. AND THEY STILL haven’t learned, aka the Gay Rights movement. We may not be in the mess we are in concerning forcing pastors to marry, if they hadn't spent a few decades trying to keep it illegal. Religion inspired, and as more people realized this, the greater the push backwards. Well, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading.
“This is a total cop-out argument. Yes, 1960s technology was far inferior to what we have today… even one of our cell phones contains vastly more computing power than what was aboard the Apollo spacecraft. But the Apollo spacecraft only had to know how to do one thing: get living, breathing astronauts to the Moon and back… As far as NASA having created all the footage of the landings in a studio, it actually would have been easier at the time to just go to the Moon…
‘This, unfortunately, has more to do with the nature of politics and public interest than space technology, although the latter often becomes a casualty of the former. There’s a lot involved with the answer to this, but suffice to say after the Apollo program was closed down, the technology to send humans to the Moon was retired… As times changed, priorities (and thus budgets) changed, and NASA’s manned spaceflight program of the 60s and early 70s became a thing of the past, in some cases replaced by newer, better goals… but in some cases still not replaced at all.”
No, The Moon Landings Weren’t Faked. (And Here’s How You Can Tell.) | Lights in the Dark
GaryA, You said it was food for thought, but I’m just going to put what I had planned on writing:
We haven’t been back because the support is not there and people don’t care. In grade school, there is a fascination with this topic, and that comes naturally with being a curious child. As you start to hit junior high, and into high school, pressure from peers to be like the cool kids who carry backbacks that weight more themselves than what is actually in them, gets the best of many students. They relax their interest, or dispense it altogether.
I know I was one of them, though not because of pressure. I just had other worldlier, superficial pursuits. I didn’t start taking a serious interest in science again until years after I had to dropped out of college in 2005. Slowly through time, I began to open up to other doctrines, because I wanted to understand them. If I address what I don’t agree with, I want to understand it, unlike the several instances while visiting churches that I witness pastors willingly or not misrepresenting other doctrines. This was an issue of integrity to me. And you learn the other position not by reading WHAT THE OPPONENT says, but reading the text yourself.
And yes, Kodiak, science is not a fixed discipline – neither is psychology or sociology, which also uses scientific methods of asking questions and collecting data. It is open to change, because the data we collect changes, as we learn more and advance in tools to aid in calculations. And again, linking evolution with atheism, using this slippery slope to scientists “disproving” God, is only going to aggravate the divide, imo.
Perhaps at some point they will pose that. But as a standard, the data is published in a journal, and you may examine it yourself – in this country, or at least as it’s supposed to be, you don’t have to accept other people’s opinions or ideas. That is the whole beauty of it. You can reject the idea that gravity exists, and no one is going to throw you in prison for it (if we keep going this way however, that might be a different story concerning freedom to reject).
And isn’t the whole presumption behind a Creationist mindset or model that God can’t be disproven? “You don’t care as long as they can prove it… and what if they come out with something ‘proving’ God is not real…” Why would that concern you? Write to your newspaper, start a blog, take some public speech classes – you can’t seriously expect other people to remain silent so that you don’t have to debunk or reject anything.
Now, should the idea of God enter into science, be a part of science? You understand that by inviting a spiritual or religious flavor into a discipline that is about asking questions, testing them, testing already established assumptions… that if you can write a paper about evidence for God, then THE VERY NATURE OF THIS DISCPLINE allows others to write what they feel is evidence for His inexistence. Unintended consequences, you see.
I’m not being mean or anything, but we are not being silenced – yet. Disciplinary actions or favoritism in secular institutions, I’ve noticed in your link (I’ll comment more later). But you know why? Science has become a political thing. Why has it become a political thing? Why is stating a thesis akin to aligning to a political party?
Because the Right has pursued this in courts, relentlessly trying to adjust laws ultimately in the name of God and Creation – thus dragging science into the political sphere. The “Monkey Trial” should have settled things – it didn’t. Conservative Christians rose up, the Right saw the advantage in appealing on their behalf (to get votes, you see) and here we are.
The Left is JUST AS BAD about propaganda, if not worse these days, and spreading lies and misinformation. But the suppression here is not because of the idea itself, the suppression is because it has become a political topic and thus has consequences for a university that doesn't align with a the more favored political platform.
And Right Christians, with their consistent push for religion-inspired laws, has had a great hand in how these skeptics of evolution are treated. AND THEY STILL haven’t learned, aka the Gay Rights movement. We may not be in the mess we are in concerning forcing pastors to marry, if they hadn't spent a few decades trying to keep it illegal. Religion inspired, and as more people realized this, the greater the push backwards. Well, that’s what I’ve gathered from reading.
read the statement you posted people do not want evolution to be not true, so every evidence they look for they pose it towards evolution
You should watch Expelled - No intelligence allowed - Good illustration of the paradigm of Evolution - and talks with a few who have been ostracized for doubting evolution.
You should watch Expelled - No intelligence allowed - Good illustration of the paradigm of Evolution - and talks with a few who have been ostracized for doubting evolution.