[_ Old Earth _] Earth is only about 6000 years old

[PraisetheLord0523]

Im not sure how many people knows who Kent Hovind is. But hes a amazing creationist. He'll make evolution look like the dumbest thing ever. Some might have seen some of his seminars some might not..but i believe that everyone should see it.

I was able to find it uploaded on youtube without having to buy the tapes.

You tube only has 4/7 of his seminars.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2f0T7O8wPh4& ... t%20hovind

This is his first seminars and it explains why earth is 6000 years old and not billion and billions of years old. Its about 2 hours long..but itz funny so itz worth watching and his info is just amazing.

 

[jwu]

Sorry, but Hovind is anything but reliable. Even other creationist organizations criticize him quiite a lot.

If you think he makes a good point, let's discuss it here, one by one.

 

[noblej6]

Hi forum,

I agree with jwu, Dr.Dino just might turn more people off creationism than any other single thing. Like I know precious little about science, but even I can see thru Hovind.

God did create this world and everything on it, He just used evolution to do it and that took more than 6000 years.

Kent has a $250000 challenge of some kind that is either a major farce or he ran into trouble with it somehow. Do any readers remember what that was about?

noblej6

 

[moniker]

The offer is this:

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

It is contingent upon proving something that is unprovable. Chiefly that God is not the cause of all things. Well since you can neither prove nor disprove God it is rather impossible, and it doesn't really respond to the actual theory of evolution anyway. Same goes for #'s 1, 2, and 3. They are all distinct theories (big bang, and abiogenesis) which evolution doesn't bother with. It is only focused with after life was created.

So, yeah it is basically a crock and a rather well thought out strawman.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

Please provide a reference.
Biological evolution is NOT dependant on where matter came from.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

Planets and stars do indeed form from dust and gas in space, however evolutionary thoery does not "depend on" this fact.

Provide reference that it does.

3. Matter created life by itself.

Isn't that the same as #1

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

All organisms can reproduce. No intellect is requried for that.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

That is just about the only statement that actually pertains to evolutionary thoery. An so what.

 

[ArtGuy]

I don't think he was endorsing that position, LC, but only explaining what Hovind's $250k challenge was.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Forum,

Where does the idea come from that evolution takes place WITHOUT God?

I am aware that evolution exists and I assume it exists BECAUSE of God.

What's the deal here, leaving God out of evolution?

Noblej6

 

[telran]

Hi Forum,

Where does the idea come from that evolution takes place WITHOUT God?

I am aware that evolution exists and I assume it exists BECAUSE of God.

What's the deal here, leaving God out of evolution?

Noblej6

Its actually the scientific stance, if there is no evidence for something, then it is simplest to assume it has no influence. There is no evidence for god influencing evolution, as far as we can tell evolution took place all on its own thanks to the laws of physics and matter.

*edit*
Im not saying that god could not have set up the laws of the universe such taht it would play out on its own.

Also the reason most people trust mans interperetation of the evidence is because it happens to be the most usefull way to do things.
*edit end*

 

[moniker]

Hi Forum,

Where does the idea come from that evolution takes place WITHOUT God?

I am aware that evolution exists and I assume it exists BECAUSE of God.

What's the deal here, leaving God out of evolution?

Noblej6

Its actually the scientific stance, if there is no evidence for something, then it is simplest to assume it has no influence. There is no evidence for god influencing evolution, as far as we can tell evolution took place all on its own thanks to the laws of physics and matter.

*edit*
Im not saying that god could not have set up the laws of the universe such taht it would play out on its own.

Also the reason most people trust mans interperetation of the evidence is because it happens to be the most usefull way to do things.
*edit end*

Well the best way to go about explaining it (that I can come up with) is that science explains the 'how' meanwhile theology/religion explains the 'why.'

 

[ArtGuy]

Well the best way to go about explaining it (that I can come up with) is that science explains the 'how' meanwhile theology/religion explains the 'why.'

Exactly. Science doesn't concern itself with God, because God is not something that can be disproven, even in theory. Science is the study of ideas which are falsifiable. You need to be able to make predictions, and then make observations in order to check those predictions. That's not how theology works. Religion is more philosophy than science, which is why attempts to science-ify religion - like ID - don't work very well.

 

[reznwerks]

Im not sure how many people knows who Kent Hovind is. But hes a amazing creationist. He'll make evolution look like the dumbest thing ever. Some might have seen some of his seminars some might not..but i believe that everyone should see it.

I was able to find it uploaded on youtube without having to buy the tapes.

You tube only has 4/7 of his seminars.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2f0T7O8wPh4& ... t%20hovind

This is his first seminars and it explains why earth is 6000 years old and not billion and billions of years old. Its about 2 hours long..but itz funny so itz worth watching and his info is just amazing.

I don't know how many time I must post the truth about Kent Hovind but somebody has to do it. Read about his "bogus" challenge, his bogus credentials, his refusal to debate etc.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm

 

[TruthMiner]

Im not sure how many people knows who Kent Hovind is. But hes a amazing creationist. He'll make evolution look like the dumbest thing ever. Some might have seen some of his seminars some might not..but i believe that everyone should see it.

I was able to find it uploaded on youtube without having to buy the tapes.

You tube only has 4/7 of his seminars.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2f0T7O8wPh4& ... t%20hovind

This is his first seminars and it explains why earth is 6000 years old and not billion and billions of years old. Its about 2 hours long..but itz funny so itz worth watching and his info is just amazing.

There are only three possibilities for anyone insisting upon a 6000 year old earth:

1. The person is uninformed.

2. The person is not the sharpest pencil in the box.

3. The person has serious denial issues.