Macro-Evolution Debunked - No Transitional Species

[Adama]

Kent Hovind is THE only man to go to for your Creationism doctrine. He gets it good. About time you've stumbled across him.

[Winston]

Kent Hovind is THE only man to go to for your Creationism doctrine. He gets it good. About time you've stumbled across him.

Yeah and he is a great speaker too. Very understandable and informative and passionate about the subject. I don't know if he's right or not. I'm not a geologist and I have no way of testing anything he says. But he does have a lot of convincing arguments and facts to present. Have you seen his lecture series? I posted a playlist of it above which contains a long list of his lectures. A lot to go through.

[Winston]

For anyone who wants to hear from both sides of the creation vs. evolution debate, here are some debates between Kent Hovind and Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GJmFVcfys[/youtube]

In the second debate, it's a three way debate between Kent Hovind, Kyle Frazier and Michael Shermer. Frazier believes in God and creationism but maintains that Earth is billions of years old, so he takes a middle ground.

Description:

Dr. Hovind takes on Kyle Frazier and Dr. Michael Shermer at Emmanuel Christian Center, Minneapolis, MN. In this debate Kent Hovind defends the position that the Bible is literally true, the earth is six thousand years old and the evolution theory is retarded. Kyle Frazier maintains the position that the earth is billions of years old, but God created it. This is commonly called the Theistic Evolution Position or the Progressive Creation Position. Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine and author of How to Debate a Creationist, maintains the position that there is no God necessary and evolution can explain everything. There was a packed house! See Dr. Hovind successfully defend the literal Biblical view against the evolution theory, and show that God did not need evolution to create the world.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFJ9Eh7tnE0[/youtube]

[gsjackson]

Watched the entire first video. Boy, did Hovind lay waste to that little Shermer dude, who brought nothing but the argument from authority -- a, b and c all believe evolution to be true, so it must be.

I've long thought evolution was nonsense, but it never really occurred to me that the Biblical story of creation might be literally true. I always thought carbon dating was conclusive, for one thing. Guess I've got a whole new area of study to look into.

[Adama]

Watched the entire first video. Boy, did Hovind lay waste to that little Shermer dude, who brought nothing but the argument from authority -- a, b and c all believe evolution to be true, so it must be.

I've long thought evolution was nonsense, but it never really occurred to me that the Biblical story of creation might be literally true. I always thought carbon dating was conclusive, for one thing. Guess I've got a whole new area of study to look into.

While you're at it, you should get saved. If you're capable of believing the creation story, then you should be able to get saved easily. Most of the people who can't get saved refuse to believe in creation.

[gsjackson]

I've always been some sort of Christian, desirous of salvation. But I'm afraid I'm of the personality type that William James described as once-born, rather than the twice-born, or born again. I got my marching orders a long time ago, and it's a long, slow trek toward truth. I'm an ineffectual wretch, but I don't stand convicted, and think I'm already on a Christian path. I don't think this is subject to change by anything any person says to me, but I keep an open mind.

There would be a lot more souls saved, in my view, if there were more preachers with the intellectual rigor of Hovind, who you could see had lots of those college kids eating out of his hand (while the homely old faculty reprobates frowned in conspicuous disapproval). He's quite the contrast with the last evangelist who thought he was going to save me. I was dragging my bad knee through Bucharest, and some young guy from Alabama came up and asked if he could pray over the knee. I said knock yourself out, and soon enough he was praying for my soul, which I expected.

Major problem with his technique -- he pronounced the knee healed, and said that would be reflected in x-rays when I returned to the U.S. I asked didn't I need to believe that for it to become true, and he said no. Sufficient that he believed it. He looked a lot like the pictures we see of Jesus, long brown hair and beard, wiry build, so megalomaniac is the thought the crossed my mind. In any case, the knee didn't change, and the x-rays still showed no cartilage in the medial compartment. (Get the inside part replaced next week by a gentile surgeon who I feel real good about.)

[El_Caudillo]

Well I'm starting to have some doubts about evolution over this mutation issue - that mutations only take away from genetic information don't add to it. So a fish with no eyes has adapted to a dark cave by losing something. There are no examples of animals gaining genetic information to adapt - something that seems necessary for evolution? Although Hovind talks about a short legged sheep being a useless mutation - what about a long legged sheep? It seems very possible such a mutation would happen and be useful.

The first vid here is excellent and short and the second one very interesting too, though perhaps biased against evolution - and shock horror (for this website) the speaker is and intelligent American Woman haha...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Sx0HDPLCo[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6WFUCJNu2w[/youtube]

[Adama]

I've always been some sort of Christian, desirous of salvation. But I'm afraid I'm of the personality type that William James described as once-born, rather than the twice-born, or born again. I got my marching orders a long time ago, and it's a long, slow trek toward truth. I'm an ineffectual wretch, but I don't stand convicted, and think I'm already on a Christian path. I don't think this is subject to change by anything any person says to me, but I keep an open mind.

There would be a lot more souls saved, in my view, if there were more preachers with the intellectual rigor of Hovind, who you could see had lots of those college kids eating out of his hand (while the homely old faculty reprobates frowned in conspicuous disapproval). He's quite the contrast with the last evangelist who thought he was going to save me. I was dragging my bad knee through Bucharest, and some young guy from Alabama came up and asked if he could pray over the knee. I said knock yourself out, and soon enough he was praying for my soul, which I expected.

Major problem with his technique -- he pronounced the knee healed, and said that would be reflected in x-rays when I returned to the U.S. I asked didn't I need to believe that for it to become true, and he said no. Sufficient that he believed it. He looked a lot like the pictures we see of Jesus, long brown hair and beard, wiry build, so megalomaniac is the thought the crossed my mind. In any case, the knee didn't change, and the x-rays still showed no cartilage in the medial compartment. (Get the inside part replaced next week by a gentile surgeon who I feel real good about.)

Don't be fooled. Not everyone who says they are of Christ is of Christ. Come on man. The only persons who could heal you in such a way are Jesus and the Apostles. No such men are living today. Remember, this is a spiritual battle, and Satan's ministers do masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Listen to the doctrine. Is it by grace (the gift of God) through faith, not of works, with eternal security? If it is of works or faith plus works, then it is heresy. That's all there is to it.

[El_Caudillo]

So let's look at Kent Hovind's theory about the history of the earth and dinosaurs...from Wiki

The Hovind Theory

Hovind presented a version of Young Earth creationism he calls the "Hovind Theory" in lectures and in the book Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution.[42][43] The Hovind Theory is entirely rejected in the scientific community, and its plausibility has been criticized by other Young Earth creationists.[44][45]

In the theory, dinosaurs and humans coexisted and Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian prior to the fall of man.[30][46] Expanding upon the early 20th century vapor canopy concept of a protective shield that made Earth a relative paradise between the expulsion from Paradise and Noah's flood.[47] Noah's family and two of every kind of animal[48] (including dinosaurs which fit because babies were taken aboard and conditions allowed larger humans making the ark's size based on cubits larger[49]) boarded Noah's ark before an ice meteor impacted the Earth. Fragments from the meteor caused planetary rings and impact craters on the moon and other solar system bodies.[50] The remainder were drawn to the North and South Poles by the Earth's magnetic field as cataclysmic snowfall which buried the mammoths standing up.[43][50] The ice on the poles cracked the Earth's crust, releasing the "fountains of the deep". According to Hovind, these events caused an Ice age, and made the Earth "wobble around", collapsing the vapor canopy that protected it.[citation needed]

In the next few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil, coal, and fossils.[51] The last months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted, forming ocean basins and mountain ranges. The Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time[46] due to erosion from the floodwaters receding. After a few hundred years, the ice caps melted and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves, and the deeper oceans absorbed carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere allowing greater amounts of radiation to reach the Earth's surface. As a result, Hovind believes human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.[citation needed]

[Winston]

Watched the entire first video. Boy, did Hovind lay waste to that little Shermer dude, who brought nothing but the argument from authority -- a, b and c all believe evolution to be true, so it must be.

I've long thought evolution was nonsense, but it never really occurred to me that the Biblical story of creation might be literally true. I always thought carbon dating was conclusive, for one thing. Guess I've got a whole new area of study to look into.

While you're at it, you should get saved. If you're capable of believing the creation story, then you should be able to get saved easily. Most of the people who can't get saved refuse to believe in creation.

No man. That doesn't follow. Just because there are problems with evolution, or it may not be true, and just because there may be a creator or designer, it does NOT automatically follow that the Bible is literally true or that we have to get saved to avoid going to hell. It simply doesn't follow. There are other possibilities. Why not assume that Islam is true then? Or Zoroastrianism? Or a deist god? Or that we live in a computer simulation which explains why the universe is fine tuned for life, aka the anthropic principle?

Further, even if the Bible contains truth and divine inspiration, it doesn't mean it's perfect or literally true. What about the verse that says "faith can move mountains"? Or the verse that says that believers can drink poison but not be harmed, at the end of Mark? Are you gonna take those literally true? Can your faith move mountains literally? Can you drink poison and not be harmed? You gonna try that? Most Christians probably take those verses as allegorical, they have to. But Kent Hovind never addressed stuff like that. He dodged it when Shermer brought up the Bible verses about cruelty and killing.

I just saw the whole first debate. Hovind sure whipped Shermer. He wiped him off the floor. But Hovind is also a talented speaker, but better than Shermer. Not only is he informative, but he's witty and funny as well. He had the audience laughing every minute. So he has the gift of humor as well, which makes him very likable. He brings entertainment to this debate as well. But I guess you have to try to make the audience laugh in these debates and lectures, because if you just drill the audience with dry technical data, they will fall asleep. The common people need to be entertained with humor to make them laugh.

El_Caudillo, you should see the Hovind vs. Shermer debate. It will knock your socks off, and make you laugh a lot. Hovind's remarks are very funny. He could be a stand up comedian too. Here is the link to see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GJmFVcfys

Btw, it looks like Hovind has debated many people about Evolution. Here is a list of them if you want to see more of his debates. In one he even debated the whole audience at UC Berkeley. lol

Dr. Kent Hovind debates
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ind+debate

Dr. Kent Hovind debates the audience at UC Berkeley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED32UZT06sc

[Adama]

Dear, Winston. I never said it follows. I just said he should. If he can believe the creation, which is something most atheists will contend with a passion, then it is more likely he's open to getting saved. I didn't say it naturally follows. You people here only read what you want to read.

I'm not going to debate the gospel with you, Winston. You're unable to believe. You alienated your mind from God, when you embraced doctrine your soul warned you was Satanic. Hows it that you think you can understand the things of God?

Tomorrow the wind will carry you in another direction. Your beliefs are like the wind. Why bother with you?

[El_Caudillo]

Wow Shermer sucks as a speaker. You know what would be fun Winston - to go and visit Hovind's Dinosaur World in Tampa Florida or wherever it is. We might actually meet the man himself now that he is out of jail...

[gsjackson]

Wow Shermer sucks as a speaker. You know what would be fun Winston - to go and visit Hovind's Dinosaur World in Tampa Florida or wherever it is. We might actually meet the man himself now that he is out of jail...

Wasn't that for some sort of principled opposition to the tax system? The guy's pretty impressive, and stayed right on point in his debate with Shermer, who didn't bother trying to defend evolution, but rather employed the usual tactic of appealing to "all thinking people" out there to marginalize this kook. Hovind has his schtick memorized -- this was virtually identical to a presentation he gave four years earlier in another of Winston's links -- but simply putting it together in the first place is an impressive accomplishment.

[Adama]

Kent Hovind's personal Youtube channel, with near daily updates.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxiEtq ... qsJNrdOIQQ

[Moretorque]

Here is one way I see evolution, I am a male of European decent. According to evolution all human races came from the Black man and the Black man came from the ape.

Now I'll be damned if the Black man is not a prime example of a species in transition ??????