Kent Hovind - Creationist
 

Makes a career out of debunking the theory of evolution

http://www.livevideo.com/user/video...E889C3D4C76&p=2

^ this guy has 2 of his seminars...peep it coz i know how you guys like a debate or 2 :thumbup:

Everyone who is anti-christian will problay post in here and state claims that he doesn't know what he's talking about and everyone who is christian will state claims about how they're wrong. It's a never ending debate. Neither side will win until there is clear PROOF, I guess you could say. I know what I believe, but your fate is in your own hands.

being non-christian is not being "anti-christian"... and all christians are not ignorant. the theories of evolution and creation can co-exist, and if you can't question and test your faith then you don't have any faith at all.

^^Nope that's not true, HE USED to have faith in God then his daughter died, after that he lost all faith.

There was a certain species of butterfly that evolved and gained immunity to some thing that threatened it's existence. I don't remember the specifics, but it's the fastest evolution we have ever witnessed, taking only 6 years.

There is too much proof of evolution. If you go against evolution, you are crazy. Evolution and religion can co-exist, but evolution is basically fact now.

Look...

Anyone debunking myths about evolution is only aiding the research itself...

Understanding a natural phenomena such as evolution will continue to be a work in progress.. What this guy doesent realise is that whether or not he makes small additions to try and claim that creationism (a theory with absolutly no evidence) fits in to fill the gaps where the science of evoltion hasnt reached yet, hes only indirectly advancing the study of evolution itself..

If he was to come up with 20 problems about the theory, scientists can simply say "oh, ok cool... well lets do more research and try to fill these gaps and expand on our knowledge"..

This is what creationalists dont realise and the exact reason why they hold no clout in modern science... Creationism has no logic behind it.. No proving or disproving.. Its just a group of humans saying "god did it"....

Now you can sit here talking as much as you like about the problems of the theory of evolution, but then to go on saying that creationism is right because "god did it" is like telling someone with a scientifically geared mind theres an invisible wall infront of them and to just believe in that wall and never cross it.

Evolution, while it may have its problems is the only available theory of how things came to be with a systematic logical approach that fits in well with our currant laws of nature as opposed to the approach handed down from our more primative ancestors saying that god just clicked his fingers and it all appeared with a very limated sense of world history... (remember they also told us the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe ..*cough*)

All this guys doing is trying to drag scientific theory down to the antiquated level of religious dogmatism not realising evolution will continue as a work in progress and is outside the bounds of his set theorhetical guidelines (labeled as creationism).

Simply a loss for him and all the un-opinion-worthy sheep who get brainwashed by him...

Sorry............................................. .........................

oy nos

I remember a while ago you were talking about astrology and shit, could you tell me what you found out about, any good sites/books you came across and what your conclusion on the merit of astrology was? Recently it sparked my interest, and this info will save me a lot of time.

Its interesting...

I have my own theories on it.. I can tell you it was first seen to be used by humans around 4000 B.C, the basic idea behind it is that everyone is born reletive to certain locations in the sky, based on the exact time and place a child is concieved.. There are twelve different locations in our visible sky and and these are all given fairly arbitrary labels only sometimes referencing to certain characteristics presumed to be present within the people born according to the locations in space and time..

Finding these locations in the sky is as easy as spotting constellations, and other factors include what planets (with their own set of characteristics) rest in our signs aswell as what time of year it is etc etc...

Its interesting to me because at first glance it would appear to all be compleatly fabricated however the problem is.............there is some pretty visible evidence that it actually works and turns out to be acurate..

I've read things in astrology books about peoples star signs that are more or less exactly on point about their individual personalities and physical appearence that are clearly not just points that would realistically fit anyone their applied to..

How it works? Possibly the forces of gravity play a part? Or maybe it was developed over centuries of hard out study of human beings...

Who knows.. Either way its an interesting topic... Worth checking out by all means...

Yeah, I too thought that it was total bullshit until I realized how accurate it actually is..

This guy explains that there are 6 types of evolution...and that the first 5 he discredits because it's NOT science fact because these stages of evolution cannot and never will be able to be analysed, tested and so forth...micro-evolution which is the 6th stage he accepts as science fact because it's around us today and we can study it, analyse it and what not...

I'm not saying at all by any means that th Creationists view on how we came to be is correct because he himself is basig his theory on faith alone...but what he is trying to say is that evolutionists are basing their theories on the exact same principle which is faith...and it's their "faith" that is in kids textbooks teaching us that evolution MUST of happened coz it's right there in school books and in libraries...if we denied the fact that the earth was round and said it was flat again and wrote it down in textbooks and had our kids read it up and study it...they'd believe it...

BUT the only difference is that NOW we can see the shape of the Earth coz it's here and now and we can analyse it...evolution & creation theorists cannot put their "theories" in textbooks because neither are science fact

i reckon in the Science books where they ask..."How did the universe begin?"...we should put there..."don't know kids, but when we do find out for sure, we'll let you know"

Oh yeah.. Nice one..

So this dickheads big argument is that both creationism and evolution could both be equally wrong..

Sure.................

However evolution unfortunatly for him is a theory based on logic brought about by the observable laws of nature... Not a story written by ancient civilisations.......

exactly...it's a theory based on the observable laws which are today and the only observable stage of evolution we see is stage 6 evolution which is micro-evolution we cant study the previous 5 stages of evolution because we didnt have the technology to study them OR we may ot have been here to do study them...do you honestly think its possible with todays observable laws that "nothing could explode into everything?"

what he is doing is preaching, plain and simple...what im saying is if you look at the arguments he puts across to debunk the evolution theory, you can make up an interesting debate without the whole God loves you stuff in between

There is solid proof for evolution... I taught Biology for a while, and I can tell you that while they don't know everything about it, they know a lot. They have basically mapped out history and found fossils of shit, including fossils known as "transition fossils," for example fossils from single creatures that have characteristics of both reptiles and birds.

Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.

Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.

Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).

Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.

Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.

so youre telling me you have proof a dog came from a rock?

You look down on rocks. This universe is not stupid, it is smart. A tree grows apples, and we don't question it. We just look at the tree and see that apples grow from it. Bacteria grows in/on animals or nutrients or whatever else, it's just what it does. Hair grows on our bodies..

Just because we are able to think, doesn't make us any different from the rest of the universe. An apple tree grows apples, that's what it does. An Earth grows people, that's what it does. Of course, the seed of a tree looks nothing like an apple tree with apples on it, and of course, a mere rock doesn't look like a dog. You are thinking in a shallow way about these things.

Yeah. Go fetch, Fucker.

roflmfao :spit:

i know it's smart and i know we dont know how smart it is but apple trees grow apples because it's what they're designed to do...we can question how apple trees came to be but lets use an apple tree as an example...

apple trees grow different variations of apples...big ones small ones etc...but they'll always be apples and they are all linked to a common ancestor...an apple tree...what the creationist believes is that while YES there are variations of other animals through genetic mutation (cross breeding/natural selecton) their common ancestor will always be that type of animal so for example...a german shepard, chiwawa & greyhounds common ancestor will be a wolf...NOT a rock because it is not proven fact that macro-evolution (where one species of animal changes into a different species) exists or certainly we havent seen it yet...

Oh, I see where this dude is coming from now..

Look up comparative embryology.

he challenges that as well mate...the gill slit in the human diagram is not a gill slit it's early development of the ear which to be fairis mentioned in texbooks but the "gill slit" is apparantly not ancestral by any means...the diagram when it was first made was an "artists impression" and even though we know what foetuses look like in the developmental stage, the artists impression is still used in some science books.

Seriously just look it up & watch it

I don't want to waste bandwidth on it. -_-

Hmm.. What does he say about pentadactyl limbs?

^ watch it and find out man there's no point in debating over something if you're not overly clear on the subject

Does he even say anything about pentadactyl limbs?

....i've been gone for this long and this is the best fucking debate i come back too???

pfffff...i say PFFFFFFHHHH!!!! AT ALL YOu!!! ANOTHER WHACK CHRISTIAN DEBATE???

WHO CARES???!!! WE ALL DIE!!!! GET OVER IT!!

lol teru you always say have an open mind, why don't you have an open mind and watch what he says?

I told you, I don't want to waste bandwidth... I have to conserve it until the 24th of the month.

I'm not even saying he's wrong, and from what I can see what he's saying makes sense, but I don't know much about his side of the argument. I want to know what he says about pentadactyl limbs... Is that such a crime?

No comment & such.

to be honest i cant really reemberif he mentioned them...i've only watched 3 of his vids once...while a work so my utter attention hasn't been on his seminars but yeah when you get the chance just look it up...

whats so good about the pendactyl limbs anyway?

They are a feature that is shared between species, pointing towards common ancestry.

i looked it up on the net and im 90% sure he covered pendactyl limbs as well bro

Roflz @ debunking evolution. I'ma go debunk the theory of gravitation too. Let's make sure we cover all bases of debunking shit that has loads of evidence proving it exists and has existed.

If that's what this guy says then he's fucking stupid, for real. He knows for a fact that those stages of evolution will NEVER be able to analyzed, tested, etc.? If your arguement is that we know everything there is to know about how the world came to be I think you're a fucking retard, holla.

i can see where ya coming from but personally the way i saw it is that really no-one knows how the universe began we can only speculate...he says God created the Universe 6,000 years ago and evolutionists say that "nothing" exploded into everything 20 billion years ago

Creationists say that animals didn't evolve from the primordial soup, but all species were placed on Earth at the same time and since then variations of that common ancestor species have arrived...but are NOT a different species

Evolutionists believe we all evolved from a rock over millions of years