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.
Evolution is a theory.
Evolution is also a fact.
But speaking of the Grand Canyon, YECs say the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood around 4400 years ago.
Why don't you do something constructive instead of just running your mouth with nonsense or filling up this thread with about 4 straight pages of nothing but you copying and pasting Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) pseudoscience.
Present your best case why the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood around 4400 years ago.
Evolution is also a fact.
But speaking of the Grand Canyon, YECs say the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood around 4400 years ago.
Why don't you do something constructive instead of just running your mouth with nonsense or filling up this thread with about 4 straight pages of nothing but you copying and pasting Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) pseudoscience.
Present your best case why the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood around 4400 years ago.
Originally Posted by valiant
You are totally misinformed. I don't know about Americans but there are knowledgeable scientists outside the US who do not accept the theories you espouse. They are highly skilled and acknowledged in their fields and yet see things totally differently from you. To dismiss them as pseudo scientists is simply to demonstrate your ignorance and bias.
Of course evolution is a theory! In science theory is as good as it gets. Whenever I see a poster talk about theories being proven or unproven, I know immediately that the poster knows next to nothing about science and how science works. Theories are models about how something works based on a great deal of observation and much testing. However, theories are always tentative and provisional in that it is never possible to have all the evidence. It is always possible that new evidence will require that the theory be modified, or in some cases, discarded completely. The history of science is filled with examples of this. The word 'proof' simple does not apply in science the way it does in logic or in mathematics. What then can we say about evolution? We know from observation that evolution is a fact --- life on this planet has changed dramatically over time and that change continues even today. That fact cannot be argued. But what drives that change? How exactly does it work? That is where the theory of evolution comes in. However, this being said, it is possible to disprove the theory of evolution. All that would be needed are solid facts. That has not happened in the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory.
lol vague waffle. the theory of evolution is unproven. It is speculation. It cannot be tested in test tubes. It is speculation based on carefully selected 'evidence'.
you don't think microbiology has upset the applecart? I suggest you think again. Darwins simple cell is dead in the water.
you cannot reasonably compare it with scientific theories which CAN be tested again and again.
you don't think microbiology has upset the applecart? I suggest you think again. Darwins simple cell is dead in the water.
you cannot reasonably compare it with scientific theories which CAN be tested again and again.
There are no provable laws in science. Every theory is provisional in nature because new information can change the whole picture. What have been called laws in the past --- e.g. Kepler's Laws, Newton's Laws the Law of Gravity and several others --- have all been disproven although they are still useful under nonrelativistic conditions. You really do not seem to have a solid grasp on science do you?
No, I don't think think in general that federal judges are ignorant and biased. You may find a rotten banana in a bunch of them on occasion, but that is true of most anything. If you substituted "YEC" for "federal judge" I might agree with you.
The job of the federal judge in these cases is to listen to the testimony of the expert witnesses and their cross-examination and render a decision regarding the matters before the court.
In the last federal court decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover) on the matters of which we speak the judge said in his opinion:
"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
The job of the federal judge in these cases is to listen to the testimony of the expert witnesses and their cross-examination and render a decision regarding the matters before the court.
In the last federal court decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover) on the matters of which we speak the judge said in his opinion:
"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
Q: What evidence, specifically, does Dr. Dino give for a young earth?
A: None that is credible.
Q: What evidence does Dr. Dino provide that carbon dating doesn't work and is it credible?
A: No evidence that is credible. Of course carbon dating doesn't work if it is intentionally improperly utilized so that YECs can claim it doesn't work.
Why don't you ask me to provide evidence that YECs intentionally improperly utilize carbon dating so that they can claim it doesn't work?
A: None that is credible.
Q: What evidence does Dr. Dino provide that carbon dating doesn't work and is it credible?
A: No evidence that is credible. Of course carbon dating doesn't work if it is intentionally improperly utilized so that YECs can claim it doesn't work.
Why don't you ask me to provide evidence that YECs intentionally improperly utilize carbon dating so that they can claim it doesn't work?
We are not talking a philosophical conclusion, we are talking a scientific conclusion.
From the Wikipedia article on Young Earth Creationism:
Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists - starting with Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) - have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation.[SUP][7][/SUP] Scientific evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts Young Earth creationism, showing the age of the universe as 13.798±0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth as at least 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on Earth as occurring at least 2.5 billion years ago.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP]
From the Wikipedia article on Young Earth Creationism:
Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists - starting with Henry M. Morris (1918-2006) - have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation.[SUP][7][/SUP] Scientific evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts Young Earth creationism, showing the age of the universe as 13.798±0.037 billion years, the formation of the Earth as at least 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on Earth as occurring at least 2.5 billion years ago.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP]