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.
as it is written in SCRIPTURE, so it is. no one was able to rebut the one telling the truth ,
but they keep
trying to defend (with all the carnal worldly at their side) what lies that they believe anyway.
the SCRIPTURE says after a few warnings to give them up/ (with a very vivid description of them) / ...
and put them out of the assembly (remove the wicked from the assembly)
but
that's not feasible here (apparently)..... just realize they are like the ones referred to in SCRIPTURE who
keep on studying but NEVER come to knowledge of TRUTH.
but they keep
trying to defend (with all the carnal worldly at their side) what lies that they believe anyway.
the SCRIPTURE says after a few warnings to give them up/ (with a very vivid description of them) / ...
and put them out of the assembly (remove the wicked from the assembly)
but
that's not feasible here (apparently)..... just realize they are like the ones referred to in SCRIPTURE who
keep on studying but NEVER come to knowledge of TRUTH.
Never able to rebut what he says?
C'mon man.
I doubt you even bothered to read the thread.
Among others, I rebutted the claim about the fossils with dinosaur and supposedly human footprints allegedly proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Dr. Dino aka Kent Hovind repeatedly has made this claim.
Rebutting Dr. Dino is so easy even a cave man can do it. Why, even major YEC organizations like CMI (Christian Ministries International) has an article over on their website entitled "Maintaining Creationist Integrity - A response to Kent Hovind" written by Ken Ham and two others taking Dr. Dino to task on a multitude of issues.
Also CMI in their article "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" says:
"Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a further need for properly documented research for the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs."
Get it, do NOT use those tracks to say that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That, however, does not stop YECs from stating that very thing and inferring that I am stupid because I don't know that, like Viligant_Warrior did right here on this thread.
Explain where the creation came from?
It came from God. I never said that it didn't.
You can believe in God's special creation without believing the nonsense that the world is 6,000 years old.
Ask a theistic evolutionist like the Pope. Ask an Old Earth Creationist like Hugh Ross.
You can be a Christian without needlessly and erroneously pitting science against the bible.
C'mon man.
I doubt you even bothered to read the thread.
Among others, I rebutted the claim about the fossils with dinosaur and supposedly human footprints allegedly proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Dr. Dino aka Kent Hovind repeatedly has made this claim.
Rebutting Dr. Dino is so easy even a cave man can do it. Why, even major YEC organizations like CMI (Christian Ministries International) has an article over on their website entitled "Maintaining Creationist Integrity - A response to Kent Hovind" written by Ken Ham and two others taking Dr. Dino to task on a multitude of issues.
Also CMI in their article "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" says:
"Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a further need for properly documented research for the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs."
Get it, do NOT use those tracks to say that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That, however, does not stop YECs from stating that very thing and inferring that I am stupid because I don't know that, like Viligant_Warrior did right here on this thread.
Explain where the creation came from?
It came from God. I never said that it didn't.
You can believe in God's special creation without believing the nonsense that the world is 6,000 years old.
Ask a theistic evolutionist like the Pope. Ask an Old Earth Creationist like Hugh Ross.
You can be a Christian without needlessly and erroneously pitting science against the bible.
I see you are continuing your scientism rant, Jack.
Back to theology, you still have not answered theologically how Jesus could be the second Adam as per 1 Cor 15, if there was no first Adam. I eagerly await an answer that is not a poor excuse for evangelism or quoting someone who I do not respect because of his Muslim leanings!
Back to theology, you still have not answered theologically how Jesus could be the second Adam as per 1 Cor 15, if there was no first Adam. I eagerly await an answer that is not a poor excuse for evangelism or quoting someone who I do not respect because of his Muslim leanings!
Oh, I guess that makes the info legit because it was the USGS....man I should have known better........yeah I buy that one.....as far as taxes go......I haven't had to pay taxes in years except maybe a little state tax every now and then and personal property taxes.......there is not a dated source on this planet that accurately details the exact time of the creation/formation of anything on this planet......so to surmise either way is a colossal waste of time, brain cells and air! 
The age of the earth is generally stated by reputable scientific sources as determined by scientific measurements (not evolution) to be around 4.6 billion years old with a margin of error of millions of years.
YECs generally state that the earth is around 6,000 years old.
YECs have NO scientific basis for their claims.
YEC is not science. Major federal U.S. court decisions have determined that it is not science. That is why it can not be taught as science in public schools. YEC has nothing scientific published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is nothing scientific about YEC. The only ones who say it is scientific are YECs.
Now, if YECs say the bible chronologies indicate the world is 6,000 years old, that is their interpretation. An erroneous interpretation in my opinion, and it is the opinion of many other Christians.
What did the early church fathers give as the date for creation?
YECs can't deviate much from the 6,000 years or their whole argument becomes even more problematic than it already is.
You must not be paying attention then.
As one example, please refer to post #149 where I quoted Psalm 14:3 and Romans 3:12-18.
My point in doing so was to point out particularly to Kodiak that Paul quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), which Kodiak denied.
A point which you agreed with, incidentally.
Here's a verse for you:
1 Timothy 1:4: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying, which is in faith so do." (KJV)
Now, some might interpret that as a warning to future generations not to promote a fable like the world is 6,000 years old and use endless genealogies to do so.
As one example, please refer to post #149 where I quoted Psalm 14:3 and Romans 3:12-18.
My point in doing so was to point out particularly to Kodiak that Paul quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), which Kodiak denied.
A point which you agreed with, incidentally.
Here's a verse for you:
1 Timothy 1:4: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying, which is in faith so do." (KJV)
Now, some might interpret that as a warning to future generations not to promote a fable like the world is 6,000 years old and use endless genealogies to do so.
I answered your question twice.
You didn't like my answer saying I agreed with Bowman, so then I said I agreed with Jamie (whatever her number is).
Bowman gets a lot right in my opinion, like I said. I don't know much about his Muslim leanings, but you never agree with anybody if they are not a Young Earth Creationist?
Yes, I see a whole lot of that going on in this thread and elsewhere in these forums. A YEC will post something that is total nonsense and other YECs will "Like" the post despite the fact that it should be obvious to everyone that it is total nonsense.
I never said that there was not a first Adam.
You didn't like my answer saying I agreed with Bowman, so then I said I agreed with Jamie (whatever her number is).
Bowman gets a lot right in my opinion, like I said. I don't know much about his Muslim leanings, but you never agree with anybody if they are not a Young Earth Creationist?
Yes, I see a whole lot of that going on in this thread and elsewhere in these forums. A YEC will post something that is total nonsense and other YECs will "Like" the post despite the fact that it should be obvious to everyone that it is total nonsense.
I never said that there was not a first Adam.
I'll tell you what Jack, you answer my questions and even a quarter of the other questions you've been asked here and I'll do my best to answer yours, but it's funny how you've completely ignored my other 2 comments to this point yet want to call me out for a comment I "liked", very cowardly if you ask me, and I will not feed into your crap any further than this.
P
Because you are busted so bad you are embarrased.
That is why you WILL NOT BITE on the bacterial flagellar motor.
You blew it off because you know nothing about it.
Think about it jack.8,000,000 of these miniturized motors will fit on the cross section of the human hair.
These motors are reversable and have rotors,stators,driveshafts,and bushings.
Here it is again Jack. get an education jack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U
Now,in your defense,I once took apart an electric motor,ahem,cue sarcasm,and came away with the undisputable notion that it must be a trillion years old. (that was derived from the length of time I figured it took to evolve.
See how your "old earth 'science' " works????
IT COMES FROM THIN AIR.
That is why you WILL NOT BITE on the bacterial flagellar motor.
You blew it off because you know nothing about it.
Think about it jack.8,000,000 of these miniturized motors will fit on the cross section of the human hair.
These motors are reversable and have rotors,stators,driveshafts,and bushings.
Here it is again Jack. get an education jack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U
Now,in your defense,I once took apart an electric motor,ahem,cue sarcasm,and came away with the undisputable notion that it must be a trillion years old. (that was derived from the length of time I figured it took to evolve.
See how your "old earth 'science' " works????
IT COMES FROM THIN AIR.
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
What you seem to want is a ready made creation with matter, laws and life already in existence, then you will tell us how it evolved into man.
Just as Paul told Timothy...
"...science falsely so called"
What you seem to want is a ready made creation with matter, laws and life already in existence, then you will tell us how it evolved into man.
Just as Paul told Timothy...
"...science falsely so called"
What is the date you give to this global flood?
And where do you get that date?
We are having a discussion here.
This isn't about who can post a link to the most ridiculous video.
You don't even know who is doing the talking in most of the videos you are linking to.
Tell me about Dr. Don Patton, his testimony before the Texas Board of Education, and what effect it had on teaching Young Earth Creationism in the state of Texas.
And where do you get that date?
We are having a discussion here.
This isn't about who can post a link to the most ridiculous video.
You don't even know who is doing the talking in most of the videos you are linking to.
Tell me about Dr. Don Patton, his testimony before the Texas Board of Education, and what effect it had on teaching Young Earth Creationism in the state of Texas.
Although I am loathe to push this thread up to the top, your comments do need to be addressed.
So you use quotes to prove the innate evil in humans (which I agree with!) to prove long earth evolution?? Very strange. So Adam was created, and then for millions and millions of years, his descendants did what? Had more and more evil children until finally, in historical times, God called Abraham and FINALLY gave them some hope for a Saviour? And so when did sin enter into the problem? Was there a Garden of Eden, or was there a slow, oozing kind of evolution of sin? Of course, this whole argument of millions of years after Adam (correct me if I am wrong, I think this is what your theology says) means the genetic load just merrily moving along with no issues, no problems, until one day, illness and death SLOWLY becomes worse and worse. Then people needed a Saviour? Just so much vagueness in your theology!
And as for 1 Tim. 1:4, Paul was instructing Timothy about the false teachers in Ephesus, some of whom were of Greek background and the Greek mystery religions. You know, the ones who didn't believe in creation! The ones who believed in Artemis, and the Jews who were promoting the law, as it clearly says in 1 Tim. 1:6-7
"Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, [SUP]7 [/SUP]desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." 1 Tim. 1:6-7
But of course, since you don't understand using context to exegete a passage, let alone the basic principles of hermeneutics, you have no idea that you posted something that is completely egregious!
You need to interpret the Bible in terms of the passage, the chapter, the book, the New and Old Testaments. Paul certainly believed the Scriptures, including the creation account. Why would he believe in myths and legends? He believed the whole Bible! He was not a modernist picking and choosing verses out of context to support his theological errors.
As for all this Septuagint smokescreen, what I said was - The LXX is a translation! That means there are errors. I also said that Paul and ALL the apostles used the Hebrew text too, and certainly knew and studied it. The only reason the Bible tends to use the LXX is because Greek was the lingua franca, and so it quotes the more common text. Not that they didn't know or use it.
I have done a few Hebrew Word studies from the Old Testament, then connected the words to the New Testament, then looked back at how the Septuagint uses the Greek words. It is very complex, and unless you understand the differences in Hebrew and Greek culture, plus the subtleties of the two languages, you will end up fixated like you do, upon something you read on the internet about the book of Matthew using mostly the Greek, which is not true!
For instance, the Messianic quotations, are usually in Hebrew. In addition, you are hermeneutically out of order, in insisting upon 21st century accuracy in quotations, including numbers.
The apostles and Jesus often quoted the Old Testament in a free manner, abridging the Hebrew passage, or only giving its general sense. There are some 250 citations of the Old Testament which, if you place side by side you will see that there are differences. That was the cultural norm. Jesus did it, Paul did it, so in my opinion, that makes it ok. Here are some examples.[TABLE="class: maintable3, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]Hebrew. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek: he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to the bound; to proclaim a year of acceptance to the Lord. Isa.61:1,2.
Septuagint. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Isa.61:1, 2.
New Testament. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor, he hath sent me [to heal the broken-hearted,] to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send away free the bruised (perhaps from the Greek of Isa.58:6); to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Luke 4:18, 19.
Hebrew. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king shall come to thee: he is just and endowed with salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Zech.9:9.
Septuagint. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; proclaim, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold the king cometh to thee, just and exercising salvation; he is meek, and mounted on an ass and a young colt. Zech.9:9.
New Testament. Say ye to the daughter of Zion (Isa.62:11): Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Matt.21:5.
Fear not, O daughter of Zion; behold thy king cometh sitting upon an ass's colt. John 12:15.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Hebrew. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek: he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to the bound; to proclaim a year of acceptance to the Lord. Isa.61:1,2.
Septuagint. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Isa.61:1, 2.
New Testament. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor, he hath sent me [to heal the broken-hearted,] to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send away free the bruised (perhaps from the Greek of Isa.58:6); to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Luke 4:18, 19.
Hebrew. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king shall come to thee: he is just and endowed with salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Zech.9:9.
Septuagint. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; proclaim, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold the king cometh to thee, just and exercising salvation; he is meek, and mounted on an ass and a young colt. Zech.9:9.
New Testament. Say ye to the daughter of Zion (Isa.62:11): Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Matt.21:5.
Fear not, O daughter of Zion; behold thy king cometh sitting upon an ass's colt. John 12:15.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
When, on the contrary,, the spirit and scope of a passage are lost in the LXX, the New Testament writers quote directly from the Hebrew text! They knew their Bible.[TABLE="class: maintable3, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matt.2:15. Here the Seventy render: "Out of Egypt I called my children," a variation from the original which makes the passage inapplicable; since Israel, as God's first-born son (Exod.4:22, 23), was the type of Christ, and not the individual Israelites.
Again, to the passage Isa.42:1-4, quoted in Matt.12:18-21, the Septuagint gives a wrong turn by the introductory words: "Jacob my son, I will help him: Israel my chosen, my soul hath accepted him: I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles," etc.; whereas the Hebrew speaks not of Jacob and Israel, but of God's servant: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth," etc. Matthew accordingly follows the Hebrew, yet in a very free manner: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul delighteth," etc.
For other examples see Mal.3:1, as quoted by Matt.11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; Isa.9:1, 2, as quoted by Matt.4:15, 16.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matt.2:15. Here the Seventy render: "Out of Egypt I called my children," a variation from the original which makes the passage inapplicable; since Israel, as God's first-born son (Exod.4:22, 23), was the type of Christ, and not the individual Israelites.
Again, to the passage Isa.42:1-4, quoted in Matt.12:18-21, the Septuagint gives a wrong turn by the introductory words: "Jacob my son, I will help him: Israel my chosen, my soul hath accepted him: I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles," etc.; whereas the Hebrew speaks not of Jacob and Israel, but of God's servant: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth," etc. Matthew accordingly follows the Hebrew, yet in a very free manner: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul delighteth," etc.
For other examples see Mal.3:1, as quoted by Matt.11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; Isa.9:1, 2, as quoted by Matt.4:15, 16.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Quotations from the Old Testament in the New.
I just wanted to add a personal comment to Jack, if that would be ok??
You are completely out of your depth here, theologically. You quote two other forum members who support your viewpoint, even though you actually know nothing about their theology, just that they happen to support theistic evolution. You don't even know the difference between the words "evangelism" and "theology." You misapply verses to support yourself, because you don't have the vaguest concept of Bible interpretation.
You can argue the twisted and convoluted science all you want. Some of us here have a science background at least equal to yours, and we also have a much greater Biblical understanding and insight than you do.
My prayer is that you will study the Bible, instead of science. (Not that the study of science is wrong or bad, it just seems from your posts you actually have a very weak science background!) My hope is that you will post about growing closer to God, instead of angry tirades using poor logic to prove a theologically untenable position.
May God change and transform your heart, soul, and MIND, and show you the truth of his living Word!
You are completely out of your depth here, theologically. You quote two other forum members who support your viewpoint, even though you actually know nothing about their theology, just that they happen to support theistic evolution. You don't even know the difference between the words "evangelism" and "theology." You misapply verses to support yourself, because you don't have the vaguest concept of Bible interpretation.
You can argue the twisted and convoluted science all you want. Some of us here have a science background at least equal to yours, and we also have a much greater Biblical understanding and insight than you do.
My prayer is that you will study the Bible, instead of science. (Not that the study of science is wrong or bad, it just seems from your posts you actually have a very weak science background!) My hope is that you will post about growing closer to God, instead of angry tirades using poor logic to prove a theologically untenable position.
May God change and transform your heart, soul, and MIND, and show you the truth of his living Word!