What stance do Orgahs take on Kent Hovind?

[Lorenzo_H]

I'm sorry to go against my fellow manxman but...PAH!

The Earth is over 3 billion years old, Dinosaur evidence (i.e. fossils, footprints, eggs etc) stop completely at the K-T boundary, the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (around 65 mya), and Human evidence starts at around 3 mya with the founding of 'Lucy' an upright ape of the family austrolapithecus, if my maths is correct that is a seperation of...oooh...62 million years.....this is all scientific fact.

The only area Creationists and Evolutionists really have any right to argue about is the beginning of the Universe, because Evolution has been proved and will continue to be proved until all the fundamentalist Creationists have wiped egg off their faces....the only area that truly should remain open for discussion is the Creation, an area which I am personally still waiting for a good enough answer.

*steps of podium*

*steps onto podium*

I have never felt so alone in my whole life! Now even my fellow countrymen are stabbing me in the back!
[/histerical rhetoric]

Look, it is well known that in Texas loads of Dinosaur footprints were found at the bottom of what used to be a river. The very fact that they didn't get worn away there after being there millions of years I don't know. But anyway, they found some dinosaur footprints. Did you know they also found human footprints with the dinosaurs? Thats enough evidence for any normal human, but not evolutionists.

All evolutionist said was "didn't find anything here to disprove evolution."
Scientific fact? Nope.

About your Lucy, let me tell you the story of Lucy. An evolutionist archeologist was commisioned to go and find missing links. He was told he had a certain amount of time to find one, or he would lose his job. It wasn't until the week before his contract expired that he found "Lucy" (that would be highly suspect in a court of law). What he found was a completely crushed head, nothing could be made of the head at all! The very important feet bones were not found at all. All he had was part of the legs and body. He didn't, however find a knee joint, which was needed to see if Lucy had monkey legs or human legs. They found the knee joint 2 miles away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. Considering the fact that there are monkeys living in Etheopia, I can tell you that what he found wasn't a missing link at all!

The evidence against evolution is overwhelming, however it is kept in the school systems because of the following reasons:
1) People don't like the idea of God telling them what to do.
2) Many evolutionists have actually agreed that Evolution is not true, but they have said "we will be forced to rewrite all our books" so they didnt take it out.

[Ironside]

A bit of links for a few arguments.

Look, it is well known that in Texas loads of Dinosaur footprints were found at the bottom of what used to be a river. The very fact that they didn't get worn away there after being there millions of years I don't know. But anyway, they found some dinosaur footprints. Did you know they also found human footprints with the dinosaurs? Thats enough evidence for any normal human, but not evolutionists.

Those human tracks are carved out and would in any case still not be human tracks

About your Lucy, let me tell you the story of Lucy. An evolutionist archeologist was commisioned to go and find missing links. He was told he had a certain amount of time to find one, or he would lose his job. It wasn't until the week before his contract expired that he found "Lucy" (that would be highly suspect in a court of law). What he found was a completely crushed head, nothing could be made of the head at all! The very important feet bones were not found at all. All he had was part of the legs and body. He didn't, however find a knee joint, which was needed to see if Lucy had monkey legs or human legs. They found the knee joint 2 miles away and 200 feet deeper in the strata. Considering the fact that there are monkeys living in Etheopia, I can tell you that what he found wasn't a missing link at all!

Johnson spoke about another knee-joint found one year earlier and never refered to been Lucy's

Look at the Ica stones of Peru. They were made by an ancient tribe (Incas). Over 300 of them depict dinosaurs. Some even have dinosaurs with men. The evidence that they were seen alive is in the fact that the skin is included in the drawings. Actual dinosaur skin has been found (that supposedly dies millions of years ago). The Colecanth was a fish that supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When a live Colecanth was found swimming in the pacific ocean near Japan, evolutionist could only say in their embarrassment "Wow, this fish can survive millions of years!"

The inca stones with dinosaurs is falsifications and is still drawn very veird for being so accurate (five fingers on a Allosaur etc)
As for the tame dinosaurs, wouldn't it be quite a few bones lying around the settlements in that case?
And for the Colaecanth, it has still evolved a bit since those old fossiles. The old ones were shore-living and the ones found today, lives on deeper water for example. They are very simular, not the same.

Where do you think Dragon legends arose from? There are over 4000 Dragon legends. They say legends always come from some truth. Do you think over 4000 people in different places all over the world would lie about the exact same thing? FYI the word dinosaur did not exist until the late 1800s.

As for the dragon myths. While quite interesting and with many theories existing on how the myths has occured, here's two facts. No dragon fossile has even been discovered and no known dinosaur has looked like a dragon while alive. You could mix bones from several different kinds of dinosaurs and get somthing simular to a dragon though. Taken together it hardly proves anything about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans.

Ofcourse everything here is part of the big conspiracy, I presume?

[Tribesman]

Damn you Ironside , how do you find it so easy to bust these myths with a minimum of effort ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ironside, thank you for taking the time to properly refute the claims presented.

I salute your resilience, for, I fear, there is little point in arguing rationally with the irrational.

[InsaneApache]

Wait! you mean that they're not true? That all the examples that diablodelmar posted are proven hoaxes! (In my best Victor Meldrew stylee) I don't belieeeve it!!!

Those sneaky evolutionists must have constructed a time machine and snuck back in time and planted all the fossil evidence, just to upset the God squad.

I wonder how much money old kenty boy has made out of this?

I think I've just got an idea for a business plan.

[Tribesman]

I wonder how much money old kenty boy has made out of this?

So does the inland revenue service . they are not happy at all .

Now then , since "Dr." Hovind has repeatedly been exposed as a habitual liar , how can anyone believe anything that he says ?

[Ianofsmeg16]

This Kent bloke baffles me still, every reverend I've spoken to believes in Evolution, they say it makes alot more sense than the god theory, so why can't this man accept scientific fact?

[Lorenzo_H]

This Kent bloke baffles me still, every reverend I've spoken to believes in Evolution, they say it makes alot more sense than the god theory, so why can't this man accept scientific fact?

Because it isn't scientific fact. Watch the debate I posted.

[Lorenzo_H]

A bit of links for a few arguments.



Those human tracks are carved out and would in any case still not be human tracks



Johnson spoke about another knee-joint found one year earlier and never refered to been Lucy's



The inca stones with dinosaurs is falsifications and is still drawn very veird for being so accurate (five fingers etc)
As for the tame dinosaurs, wouldn't it be quite a few bones lying around the settlements in that case?
And for the Colaecanth, it has still evolved a bit since those old fossiles. The old ones were shore-living and the ones found today, lives on deeper water for example. They are very simular, not the same.



As for the dragon myths. While quite interesting and with many theories existing on how the myths has occured, here's two facts. No dragon fossile has even been discovered and no known dinosaur has looked like a dragon while alive. You could mix bones from several different kinds of dinosaurs and get somthing simular to a dragon though. Taken together it hardly proves anything about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans.

Ofcourse everything here is part of the big conspiracy, I presume?

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

If you look at the ground underneath the tracks, the now rock soles have been compressed more than the surrounding rock. This cannot be imitated by chiseling out the footprint. And also how do they get there when the riverbed dries up? Your telling me that somebody swam to the bottom of the river and did it?

Ok. You show what these dragons look like. All 4000 of them please, while your at it. I have never heard a more dumb arguement. There are some described as being a Tricerotops, others Stegosaurus while some descriptions match the proper predator style dinos. The classical stereotypical dragon we know comes from the Chinese Calendar (which leads to an interesting subject; why would there be 11 other animals that all do exist, where as supposedly the Dragon is fake?) and depicts an animal with a long neck, wings like those of a bat, a long tail and plates on the back. I believe this is because it arises from all the legends of different dinosaurs from all over. For example, one legend will describe a long-necked, long-tailed dinosaur (like Diplodicus), another will have a dinosaur with plates on the back (Stegosaurus) and another fire breathing (I forgot the name of the Dino that has a nasal passage which may have properties like those of the bombardier beetle). These would all add up to one dof them being on the Chinese calendar. After all, they were simply known as "Dragons" as a generic word for all of the dinosaurs.

The story about Lucy is a cover up. Like I say, evolution says its OK to lie, so its part of the teaching to lie.

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery. Let me tell you, God is not against having fun. He set out rules though, and I think we need to obey them.

[Ser Clegane]

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery.

Just FYI - evolution and belive in God are not mutually exclusive (at least for a significant number of people, including church "officials", they aren't)

[Tribesman]

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery.
hmmmm... someone spouting the virtues of the bible does not appear to know the bible .

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

Hold on there diablo , you can read can't you , Kent is shown to be a habitual liar , is he an evolutionist ?

[Lorenzo_H]

Just FYI - evolution and belive in God are not mutually exclusive (at least for a significant number of people, including church "officials", they aren't)

But nobody here believes in that theory.

[Lorenzo_H]

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery.
hmmmm... someone spouting the virtues of the bible does not appear to know the bible .

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

Hold on there diablo , you can read can't you , Kent is shown to be a habitual liar , is he an evolutionist ?

I know the bible sufficiently well.

Kent does not lie. You may think he does, but he doesn't.

[Ser Clegane]

But nobody here believes in that theory.

What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?

[Marcellus]

So let me get this right...things evolutionists say are lies because 'they're allowed to lie' but anything that Kent Hovind say must be the truth because he simply doesn't lie? Do you have anything to back up these assertions?

[Ianofsmeg16]

But nobody here believes in that theory.

I do, I'm pretty sure Ser does. Its a neutral way of thinking when you say "God created the universe but let the Animals evolve"

btw you do know what evolution is dont you? I mean, the proper definition?

[Lorenzo_H]

What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?

No one has mentioned it in this thread yet. And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?

[Ser Clegane]

No one has mentioned it in this thread yet.

Well ... it isn't the subject of the thread, so perhaps nobody felt it was necessary to state the obvious

And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?

Unbiased with regard to enforcing forum rules? - correct

Unbiased in a sense that they are allowed to have/state an opinion? - not correct

[Lorenzo_H]

I do, I'm pretty sure Ser does. Its a neutral way of thinking when you say "God created the universe but let the Animals evolve"

btw you do know what evolution is dont you? I mean, the proper definition?

There are six types of evolution. Only one of them has evidence and is, as you so deliberatly put it, fact.

The only one which has been observed is Microevolution (changes within a kind). Macroevolution (changes from one kind to another) has never been proved and still is doubtful. Microevolution does not require Macroevolution. Neither is there fossil evidence, because Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate and is not used unless it agrees with the archeologists previous estimates. Who here can tell me what method is used?

Cosmic evolution is another form of evolution which has not been observed. Noone has a clue how stars, or meteorites are formed. Evolutionists can only take wild guesses, claim it to be fact and put it into the textbooks.

[Lorenzo_H]

Well ... it isn't the subject of the thread, so perhaps nobody felt it was necessary to state the obvious


Unbiased with regard to enforcing forum rules? - correct

Unbiased in a sense that they are allowed to have/state an opinion? - not correct

No what I'm saying is that most moderators in forums I go to do not debate.

[Ser Clegane]

No what I'm saying is that most moderators in forums I go to do not debate.

Well - this forum seems to be different then.

[Lorenzo_H]

Well - this forum seems to be different then.

Thats great! I love this forum.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
What do you mean? That nobody on this board beleives that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?

No one has mentioned it in this thread yet.

I think that the position described is implicit in my posts, isn't it? For example:

The bible is not a science text book. We are not supposed to read the bible to find out how the earth was made. We are supposed to read it to find out why the earth was made and what our response to our existence should be

If you actually read Geneseis 1 and 2, then you find there are two different acounts of creation. In Gen 1 creation is achieved in this order: light; heaven and earth; land and sea; plants; stars, sun and moon; fish and birds; land animals; man (male and female). In Gen 2 the order is: heaven and earth; man (male); plants (trees really, but I assume it means plants); animals and birds; woman. My question to Kent would be "Which of these is correct?".

My answer is the Genesis acount is not meant to the be the literal truth of the origin of the universe. However it does tell deeper and more important truths about the nature of the universe and the meaning of life. Taking it too literally is actually wrong.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm afraid those tracks aren't carved out. The evolutionist would like to have you believe it because they are allowed to lie.

See Ironside, I told you. Mad as a bucket of frogs.

diablodelmar (lovely nick for a Christian, by the way ) I admire your unstinting and unwavering faith, even as it saddens me. All the same, it's best not to start a thread asking for opinions if you are going to dismiss any arguments against your views as simply lies.

Refute them by your own standards, by all means, but just saying the evidence presented is a lie, demeans the whole debate.

I am interested in whether your dismissal of science reaches into other disciplines. Was Galileo a liar for challenging christian orthodoxy of his time? Is gravity a lie, since physicists don't really know what the gravitional force is? What about the theory behind all those consumer electronics that make your life easier (and allow you to post on this forum)? All lies? Unless there is a book of the Bible that I don't know of that details God's creation of the Walkman mobile phone for Noah? Why pick on biology?

Damn, I knew I shouldn't get into this thread. *calm, calm*

(By the by, I have a spiritual belief and trained as an evolutionary biologist. The two are not mutually exclusive. The understandings each brings belong to different paradigms and are often complementary. I don't use my science to threaten my, or other people's spiritual beliefs, nor vice versa.

I am always reminded by the story of Prof. Maynard Smith, a noted evolutionary biologist and Christian, who when asked what the study of evolution had taught him about the mind of God replied: 'That He is inordinately fond of beetles'. )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For the inquisitive, there are more species of beetles than almost any other order of fauna - so why create so many beetles?

[GodsPetMonkey]

Evolution is also a religious theory.

"Evolution is no more a religion that not collecting stamps is a hobby"

I have no idea who originally said that (and I am far too lazy to google it), but they were obviously a far wiser man then I am.

Guys, has anyone here heard of the "Conservation of Angular Momentum?"

Oh Lord, what next? No, don't tell me, experience shows it'll probably be that entropy clearly disproves evolution (followed by a random copy and paste of an evangelical's interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics, because unlike 'scientists', they don't need to spend a good part of their life studying to just to understand this stuff).

Sigh, I remember the days when the creationists used to wheel out the old entropy argument as soon as someone mentioned "scientific method". I guess after a while even they get tired of being wrong.

There is actually a lot of evidence for dinosaurs having lived with man.

Where do you think Dragon legends arose from? There are over 4000 Dragon legends. They say legends always come from some truth. Do you think over 4000 people in different places all over the world would lie about the exact same thing? FYI the word dinosaur did not exist until the late 1800s.

Look at the Ica stones of Peru. They were made by an ancient tribe (Incas). Over 300 of them depict dinosaurs. Some even have dinosaurs with men. The evidence that they were seen alive is in the fact that the skin is included in the drawings. Actual dinosaur skin has been found (that supposedly dies millions of years ago). The Colecanth was a fish that supposedly became extinct millions of years ago. When a live Colecanth was found swimming in the pacific ocean near Japan, evolutionist could only say in their embarrassment "Wow, this fish can survive millions of years!"

They also say if you eat the crusts of your bread, you get curly hair. The problem with old wives tales is they are often false, and, along with many other legends, if they ever held any truth, it was lost long ago.

As to the Coelacanth, well, so what, species survives long time. Guess what, crocodiles are older then the dinosaurs (if you pretend for a moment that the 'evolutionists', and their dastardly paleontologist buddies are right) and they are still about. What about algae? One of the simplest life forms there is, been around for well over a billion years, hell, probably two billion years!

*steps onto podium*

I have never felt so alone in my whole life! Now even my fellow countrymen are stabbing me in the back!
[/histerical rhetoric]

Look, it is well known that in Texas loads of Dinosaur footprints were found at the bottom of what used to be a river. The very fact that they didn't get worn away there after being there millions of years I don't know. But anyway, they found some dinosaur footprints. Did you know they also found human footprints with the dinosaurs? Thats enough evidence for any normal human, but not evolutionists.

The erosion was pretty good, they were in very good condition, but it was hardly the Yellow River, it was, at best, a slow flowing stream. What’s more, they had to dam the thing, then spend weeks removing the silt from the top of the petrified (that is, turned to stone over millions of years) mud in which the footprints were set. I would guess that for the footprints to erode, all that silt would have to be washed away first.

As to human footprints, while I have never been to the site in my life, I have never seen any (REAL) human footprints in photos or video footage of it, maybe they just kept it all hidden.

[QUOTE=diablodelmar]...(that would be highly suspect in a court of law)...[QUOTE]

And that is why you are not a lawyer. I would avoid trying to dress corrupted hearsay (which comes across as rather slanderous) as court admissible evidence.

The evidence against evolution is overwhelming, however it is kept in the school systems because of the following reasons:
1) People don't like the idea of God telling them what to do.
2) Many evolutionists have actually agreed that Evolution is not true, but they have said "we will be forced to rewrite all our books" so they didnt take it out.

Did God tell you these things?

Honestly, for someone who asserts that the evidence against evolution is overwhelming, you seem to have some trouble bringing this 'overwhelming' evidence to the table. Do you also believe that schools don't replace Shakespeare’s plays in versions written entirely in modern English because they would be forced to rewrite them all from their original form?

Once again, evolution is a theory applauded because if you believe you came from a rock, then there is no God telling you not to commit adultery. Let me tell you, God is not against having fun. He set out rules though, and I think we need to obey them.

No one evolved from a rock (and nor has evolution ever said otherwise).
And don't forget, it's a rock which tells you not to commit adultery, those commandments were written on stone tablets remember (and I am not using 'told' in a literal fashion here).

If adultery is your biggest worry in this world, then I am happy you live such a blissful life. I personally don't need a God to tell me that I should not betray my significant other, that's something I can work out for myself. I have bigger things to worry about to be honest.

No one has mentioned it in this thread yet. And hey, aren't moderators supposed to be unbiased?

Then sign me up, I believe it God, I will not deny it (I am a Quaker, I will not deny that either - but you may have a problem with it, but that's something you need to come to terms with).

I also believe in evolution, I believe it is the best answer to how we have come to have the biodiversity we have on this planet. It does not explain how life began, but where it went afterwards. It is not 100% accurate, and will continue to change, like all large bodies of scientific knowledge, as more and more comes to light. The problem with science is it just is not happy with the concept that "God did it, and there is nothing more to it". In fact, science has never been able to accept the idea that it has all the answers, and there is nothing else to look at.

Uh oh, I'm afraid Kent Hovind has indeed...


Well Geology is just a religious theory, eh? It hasn't been observed (definition of "Science"= something that can be tested through observation). Only micro-geology can be proved. Have you ever witnessed tectonic plates moving, Ironside?

I am sure this guy has met someone who has been in an earthquake - hell, there seems to be a volcano brewing in Indonesia right now, maybe he should take a trip and watch some geology in action, preferably close enough that he can reach out and feel that magma turn to rock!

[Lorenzo_H]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of Thermodynamics? Please give me a simple answer instead of a drawn out scientific rhetoric.

[Marcellus]

Yo dude, what is your explanation of evolution defying the first and second laws of aerodynamics?

Are you sure you don't mean themodynamics?

Assuming you do mean thermodynamics, I found this pretty quickly using Google.

[Lorenzo_H]

And that is why you are not a lawyer. I would avoid trying to dress corrupted hearsay (which comes across as rather slanderous) as court admissible evidence.

lol, how do you know I'm a lawyer?

[Lorenzo_H]

Are you sure you don't mean themodynamics?

Assuming you do mean thermodynamics, I found this article pretty quickly using Google.

Yes thanks I always confuse the two.

[wolftrapper78]

Many think that Behemoth and Leviathan that come from the last part of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book of the Bible, may be referring to dinosaurs
Well apart from saying something ridiculous like "surely the books that made up Genesis being the oldest books in the bible" , I will leave it with ,if this really really old book of Job uses words like bronze and iron bars to describe the "dinosaur" then how can it be that old ?

Because (not to get too off topic) man has always had the technology to smelt iron and always has. Look at the furnaces used to smelt iron in Armenia. Those definitely don't fit the evolutionary paradigm, but it would seem that one of the first things that Noah did when he got off the ark was to build a smelter.
Moses wrote Genesis and Job was alot older than Moses, so, doesn't that mean that Job is the oldest book of the Bible. It was written when Uz(arabia) was a very fertile land, not like it is now. It even talks about bodies of water freezing, 38:30, not something one would know alot about in present day arabia.