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.
I can show you anime cartoons where they evolve - this is pretty weak
A catapillar is changing into a butterfly - not evolving - do you even understand evolution - your using the bait and switch fallacy
This would also be a piss poor example - since the animal is breaking itself down and making itself something completely different in a matter of a very short time, you do a discredit to those trying to prove Evolution - yikes
A catapillar is changing into a butterfly - not evolving - do you even understand evolution - your using the bait and switch fallacy
This would also be a piss poor example - since the animal is breaking itself down and making itself something completely different in a matter of a very short time, you do a discredit to those trying to prove Evolution - yikes
Did you do the genealogies yourself or do you agree with Ussher or who?
If you are going to stretch it to 10,000, why can't you stretch it to 100,000?
Do you believe the bible is inerrant?
If so, then the genealogies should be accurate to the extent that there is not a 4,000 year margin of error, right?
If you are going to stretch it to 10,000, why can't you stretch it to 100,000?
Do you believe the bible is inerrant?
If so, then the genealogies should be accurate to the extent that there is not a 4,000 year margin of error, right?
I am going to go on that the genealogies are accurate - if it's 6,000 - I will fall straight under that, I will not change my thoughts towards Christless dribble trying to extend it to 100,000.
The Bible is inerrant and is to be followed, obeyed for correction, reproof and binding to yourself regardless if you believe it is or not.
It says what it means, it means what it says
What bible is inerrant, exactly?
The King James, the Septuagint (LXX), what bible, exactly?
You are going to go on that the genealogies are accurate - if it's 6,000 - you will fall under that?
Whose word are you going to take on the genealogies?
Ussher's?
Lightfoots?
That of Answers in Genesis?
Or that of he Institute for Creation Research?
And if you say God's genealogies, please tell me what date God assigned to the creation of the earth, the creation of man, and the global flood.
The Bible in it's original language, I am pretty sure we can trust a God who promises to keep His word, to preserve His word for ever tribe, tongue, and nation as he promises too.
That's funny you ask for a specific date but evolutionists can't get a specific date - +_ 200,000 years here or there.
If I wanted to go through myself with the timeline I could, I'd come up with something close to Ussher's.
Nitty gritty, you refuse to come to Jesus so that you may have life - no amount of arguing will work for you - may God smash your idols and get you to a place of repentance
What is the original language of the bible?
How could you know whatever your answer is for sure since there are no original documents.
You are saying that God's words are true because God says so.
Isn't that one of your logical fallacies you are so quick to point out, even though yours are highly suspect?
I don't need a specific date for how old the earth is or much of anything else. I don't care if the earth is 4.6 billion years old or 2 billion years old. I'll go with what the overwhelming evidence of the vast majority of credible scientists is. If that age of the earth changes, fine with me.
YECs, however, can not deviate much from around 6,000 years old for the age of the world, earth, animals, humans et al.
If they do deviate from around 6,000 years, everything falls apart even more than it already has. Think Egypt, as only one problem area.
Most YECs and Answers In Genesis (which you referred to today), Institute for Creation Research, and the ilk stick with Ussher's chronology. Not exactly to the date of creation as 4004 BC but generally to the tune of around 6,000 years for the date of creation.
Ussher's chronology was in the King James bible, and many others, for several hundred years.
Why do suppose it was taken out?
With respect to your last sentence, who are you talking to?
Are you referring to me?
How could you know whatever your answer is for sure since there are no original documents.
You are saying that God's words are true because God says so.
Isn't that one of your logical fallacies you are so quick to point out, even though yours are highly suspect?
I don't need a specific date for how old the earth is or much of anything else. I don't care if the earth is 4.6 billion years old or 2 billion years old. I'll go with what the overwhelming evidence of the vast majority of credible scientists is. If that age of the earth changes, fine with me.
YECs, however, can not deviate much from around 6,000 years old for the age of the world, earth, animals, humans et al.
If they do deviate from around 6,000 years, everything falls apart even more than it already has. Think Egypt, as only one problem area.
Most YECs and Answers In Genesis (which you referred to today), Institute for Creation Research, and the ilk stick with Ussher's chronology. Not exactly to the date of creation as 4004 BC but generally to the tune of around 6,000 years for the date of creation.
Ussher's chronology was in the King James bible, and many others, for several hundred years.
Why do suppose it was taken out?
With respect to your last sentence, who are you talking to?
Are you referring to me?
P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8
He,he,he
You got owned once again junior.
Thats why you can not respond huh?
What is it baby? Did dr dino short you on your paycheck or something?
Is that the root of the Dino tantrum?
He,he,he
You got owned once again junior.
Thats why you can not respond huh?
What is it baby? Did dr dino short you on your paycheck or something?
Is that the root of the Dino tantrum?
P
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/those-fossils-are-a-problem/
Are there any Transitional Fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/those-fossils-are-a-problem/
Are there any Transitional Fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/those-fossils-are-a-problem/