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

  • 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.
GaryA said:
The Bible is His 'statement' to mankind - it must take precedence over everything else. If anything does not agree with scripture, it must be wrong.
Click to expand...

What Bible is that?

What Bible is inerrant and infallible?
 
GaryA said:
As a rule, I do not "back off when challenged" -- i am not afraid to state what I believe. More often, it is a matter of not having the time - or, not having the time "right now"...
Click to expand...

You have said several times now that man did not walk on the moon.

So let's see your evidence.
 
JackH:

Were you referring to this? :

GaryA said:
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... ;)

:)
Click to expand...

Is this the "challenge" that you referred to? :

JackH said:
So you are into New World Order conspiracies? { No - but I am into Conspiricy Fact... }

Which "We Never Went to the Moon" conspiracy do you believe? { My own understanding of physics - and common sense. }

The one where a Hollywood director staged it for the government so NASA could pass it off to the public as a wonderful achievement?

Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) is big on the NWO conspiracies. He has said the US. government was behind 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombings.
Click to expand...
The moon landings were staged as propoganda for the Russians because of the "Space Race" - also, for the "benefit" of the American people. There are many past 'events' - including several "bombings", plane crashes, ... - and 9/11 - that were "fomented" by - not the U.S. government per se - but the "shadow government" or "government within the government" ( i.e., the illuminati ) - whose presence is in [ nearly ] every government on earth.

:)
 
kodiak said:
Please show me the law that states that I cannot explain why I believe something.
Click to expand...


You have yet to explain anything.



You need to go back and read everything I wrote, you clearly do not understand.
Click to expand...

You assert....but never explain.





I believe the science that put man on the moon is not the same science that says the earth is billions of years old.
Click to expand...

How so?




You have yet to explain how it is the same exact science. Why can't you have one without the other, that is a copout. The science looked at every angle so they wouldn't leave anything out.

Instead of just saying I am wrong, prove it! Give me actual credible scientific evidence that the earth is billions of years old and the science behind it is accurate and explain how you know. All you are giving is speculation, give evidence.
Click to expand...


The speed of light is an elementary example.

Einstein's General & Special Relativity (the most proven principles in ALL of physics - even more proven than the laws of gravity) mandate that the speed of light has never changed, and thus Universe distances are of great age. This same constant speed of light is used to gauge the distance to the moon to within mm for space travel.




I was using that as an example as to one way in which the science of dating things is not accurate. It has so many problems.
Click to expand...

Accuracy is not what you deny....you are trying to correlate your YEC theology with a date...so you reject one in favor of the other...





Science cannot even accurately determine the age of a 2 year old, what makes you think they can accurately determine the age of a 6,000 year old fossil?
Click to expand...

A 2 year old cannot be dated?

How so?
 
Bowman said:
The science that put man on the moon states the Universe is Billions of years old.
Click to expand...
What if -- just - what if -- you one day discover that "that science" did not actually put man on the moon...??? Then what? Who lied? And, what else have they lied about?

:)
 
Bowman said:
Einstein's General & Special Relativity (the most proven principles in ALL of physics - even more proven than the laws of gravity) ...
Click to expand...
This is not true. Some Modern Science thinkers today are questioning whether Einstein actually "got it right" ( 100% )... The laws of gravity are "pretty solid" -- no one has questioned them for quite some time...

:)
 
GaryA said:
What if -- just - what if -- you one day discover that "that science" did not actually put man on the moon...??? Then what? Who lied? And, what else have they lied about?

:)
Click to expand...


If YOU can convince me (or anyone here) that man NEVER walked on the moon, then hats-off to you!

You have a tall task ahead of you...roflol!!!


Next...you are going to tell us that man has NEVER actually ridden in the automobile...in fact, it hasn't even been invented yet!
 
GaryA said:
This is not true. Some Modern Science thinkers today are questioning whether Einstein actually "got it right" ( 100% )... The laws of gravity are "pretty solid" -- no one has questioned them for quite some time...

:)
Click to expand...


SR/GR have never been disproven.

Deal with the implications.
 
Bowman said:
If YOU can convince me (or anyone here) that man NEVER walked on the moon, then hats-off to you!

You have a tall task ahead of you...roflol!!!


Next...you are going to tell us that man has NEVER actually ridden in the automobile...in fact, it hasn't even been invented yet!
Click to expand...
It would be a complete waste of my time to try to convince anyone of anything who has already convinced themselves of the impossibility of it... ( i.e. - their mind is closed and locked and sealed )

And --- the onus is on you - to prove that it did actually occur...

:)
 
Gary is jacked.

GaryA said:
It would be a complete waste of my time to try to convince anyone of anything who has already convinced themselves of the impossibility of it... ( i.e. - their mind is closed and locked and sealed )

And --- the onus is on you - to prove that it did actually occur...

:)
Click to expand...


The onus is on you....as YOU are the only one in denial.

Gary, do you think the internet has been invented yet...and is it evil?
 
Re: Gary is jacked.

Bowman said:
The onus is on you....as YOU are the only one in denial.
Click to expand...
Your thinking is skewed. Ordinary logic dictates, by default, that the base-level "starting point" of any assumption to be proven is 'zero'. It is illogical to assume the existance of something, and demand from another to prove that it does not exist ( or, never existed ); rather, the "proof" must be in that it does ( or , did ) exist. ( i.e., that something actually occurred )

I deny that we have been to pluto. Are you saying that it is up to me to prove that we have not been there? :rolleyes:

:)
 
Re: Gary is jacked.

GaryA said:
Your thinking is skewed. Ordinary logic dictates, by default, that the base-level "starting point" of any assumption to be proven is 'zero'. It is illogical to assume the existance of something, and demand from another to prove that it does not exist ( or, never existed ); rather, the "proof" must be in that it does ( or , did ) exist. ( i.e., that something actually occurred )

I deny that we have been to pluto. Are you saying that it is up to me to prove that we have not been there? :rolleyes:

:)
Click to expand...


If you had any evidence for your denial, then you would have already presented it.

You have nothing.
 
Ok, I haven't seen anyone actually define theory, in science, so here it is:

Summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
Click to expand...

via PowerPoint slide on very basic, fundamental (secular, 'those on the outside') science.


I do not mean to enter the debate, as I can already hear "what repeated testing" and such. Instead of demanding each other for sources, why not google it - and actually read from sites that disagree with your views? Actually know what you are refuting. I am speaking to both sides.


"Only the most stupid people judge what they do not know." Anthony Bloom
 
Last edited:
Re: Gary is a joke...

JackH said:
You don't believe that we even went to the moon, do you?

I think you meant that post a while back where you questioned whether or not we did, even though you backed off when challenged.

So tell us all about your New World Order conspiracies.
Click to expand...
GaryA said:
As a rule, I do not "back off when challenged" -- i am not afraid to state what I believe. More often, it is a matter of not having the time - or, not having the time "right now"...
:)
Click to expand...

Bowman said:
Imagine that....a'theory' more proven than a 'law'.

Deal with your ignorance...
Click to expand...
I do not respond to some posts because I do not want to participate in the "mud-slinging" and "insulting" that often breaks out in a thread where I am only attempting to add to the discussion. I may say something that is intended to be thought-provoking, but usually try to stay on the more considerate side of the line that separates intelligent and thoughtful discussion from that which is shallow and reactionary.

What I first wanted to say to Bowman's post ( above ) was something like:

"Yes -- that is correct -- only in your imagination."

And, following the same "pattern" as one of my previous posts, I would have wanted to add:

"Deal with your ignorance..."

However -- this is where I draw the line -- because - this kind of back-and-forth insult-throwing is needless - as well as counter-productive to having an intelligent discussion.

It is never my intent to insult anyone on here.

If I thought someone on here was [ entirely ] 'ignorant' -- why would I want to engage them in [ what should be ] intelligent discussion?

Rather -- it is because I believe that others are capable of reasoning that I engage them in [ what should be ] intelligent discussion.

However -- when other people cross this line - and demonstrate that their state-of-mind is too 'shallow' and 'reactionary' to handle intelligent discussion -- I tend to "write them off" ( at least temporarily, in a particular thread, about a particular topic ) - i.e. - "ignore them for now" ( which I am now going to do regarding Bowman ) - until the "offending" person "simmers down" and starts being 'respectable'...

( By the way -- I do not use the 'Ignore' feature on the board. I have never used it to "put someone on ignore"... )

:)
 
GaryA said:
The Bible is His 'statement' to mankind - it must take precedence over everything else. If anything does not agree with scripture, it must be wrong.

:)
Click to expand...

What Bible, specifically, are you talking about?

What Bible, specifically, is inerrant and infallible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back