Creation Seminar 1 - Kent Hovind - Age of the Earth

[KILLER_CLOWN]

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

He built the amusement park on a residential lot without a permit, no less.

This is the guy that thinks that the Oklahoma City bombing was faked, evolution is a plot to control world governments by the New World Order, cyanide is a cure for cancer, T-Rex was a vegetarian, and dinosaurs helped Noah build the ark.

He is a Grade-A nutcase.

OK city faked? That's not what he says, taken out of context
He never states that evolution is a plot to control world governments, taken out of context.
Cyanide? do you mean Laetrile? or Vitamin B-17 taken out of context again..search for a world without cancer by G Edward Griffin.
point me to where he states dinos helped build the arc...lolz

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

The real question is whether or not Killer Clown is sufficiently evolved to even have a brain.

Brainiac is stumped and couldn't answer the one question I have for him so now has nothing.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqg9GdNkqdo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvODdtQgUsY


Here are 2 that have him saying the same thing. There also is about 2 hours worth of video concerning sharped tooth vegetarians and dinosaurs on the ark. I'm not going to watch 2 hours of this nutball to verify that it is true, but due to the chatter on the web I would assume so.

So the question is did someone kick you in the brain?

Where does he state Dinosaurs helped build the arc?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

No because it requires faith, have you read of any my responses? I think not. Now can YOU answer the question on how we got here? or does that also require faith?

We can't say for certain how we got here. And unlike religion, science doesn't just say "We don't know and cannot explain it, so you're just gonna have to believe it anyway, because... umm... 'Faith'".

I think this is a pretty decent explanation for my views on it:

The recipe for life is not that complicated. There are a limited number of elements inside your body. Most of your mass is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, plus some nitrogen and phosphorous. There are a couple dozen other elements that are in there in trace amounts, but to a first approximation you're just a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Now, it turns out that the atmosphere is a bag of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen as well, and it's not living. So the real issue here is, how do you take that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (or methane in an early atmosphere) and water vapor and other sources of hydrogen—how do you take those simple, inorganic precursors and make them into the building blocks of life?

There was a famous experiment done by Stanley Miller when he was a graduate student at the University of Chicago in the early 1950s. Miller essentially put methane, or natural gas, ammonia, hydrogen gas, and water vapor into a beaker. That wasn't a random mixture; at the time he did the experiment, that was at least one view of what the primordial atmosphere would have looked like.

Then he did a brilliant thing. He simply put an electric charge through that mixture to simulate lightning going through an early atmosphere. After sitting around for a couple of days, all of a sudden there was this brown goo all over the reaction vessel. When he analyzed what was in the vessel, rather than only having methane and ammonia, he actually had amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. In fact, he had them in just about the same proportions you would find if you looked at organic matter in a meteorite. So the chemistry that Miller was discovering in this wonderful experiment was not some improbable chemistry, but a chemistry that is widely distributed throughout our solar system.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

We can't say for certain how we got here. And unlike religion, science doesn't just say "We don't know and cannot explain it, so you're just gonna have to believe it anyway, because... umm... 'Faith'".

I think this is a pretty decent explanation for my views on it:

That's a pretty large step based upon faith it seems, you have your faith and I have mine.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

That's a pretty large step based upon faith it seems, you have your faith and I have mine.

What do you mean? There's no faith involved in saying "We can't say for certain." I posted a possible scenario. Which is likely incorrect or at least partially incorrect. The important thing is that I admit that it's likely incorrect. It doesn't require faith in anything I cannot prove. That's the element you're missing. That's the difference between science and religion. I can easily say "Here's my possible explanation. It's potentially wrong, but it's the best explanation with the evidence at hand."

Can your faith do the same? Can you admit your beliefs could be incorrect? Can you admit that some of what you currently believe is wrong? I can. Science allows for that. When better understanding comes along, the information is revised to reflect our better understanding. You're claiming the source of your beliefs are infallible. I'm claiming mine are fallible but I can confidently stand by the parts that I can prove. You can't prove any parts of your beliefs. Hence your necessity for faith.

I don't expect that you'll see the difference.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Can your faith do the same? Can you admit your beliefs could be incorrect? Can you admit that some of what you currently believe is wrong? I can. Science allows for that. When better understanding comes along, the information is revised to reflect our better understanding.

It absolutely can, and does...although we don't have to revise, it's revealed to us...

[Fish]

Originally Posted by stevieray

It absolutely can, and does...although we don't have to revise, it's revealed to us...

Interesting. What has been revealed to you as being wrong? And who was it revealed by?

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Brainiac is stumped and couldn't answer the one question I have for him so now has nothing.

You have never stumped me. I have simply refused to bother trying to explain the Theory of Evolution to you because you have consistently shown in this thread that you either don't read what is posted in direct response to statements you've made, you don't have the ability to understand it, or you simply refuse to engage in meaningful dialogue about it because it threatens the foundations of your religious faith. Either way, it's a waste of time, and if the idea of evolution truly threatens your belief in the existence of God, then your faith is incredibly weak.

I'll tell you what. Read the material at this link and then ask whatever questions you wish. However, if you expect your questions to be answered, the questions must be specific and must be asked in a manner that demonstrates that you actually read the material.

If you respond as you have earlier in this thread with platitudes about faith and how the Bible tells you everything you need to know, don't be surprised if people continue to mock you. However, if you choose to do that, you'd be well-advised to drop the claim that I "can't answer" your question, because it will be apparent to everyone that you're not telling the truth.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Where does he state Dinosaurs helped build the arc?

The only video I can find on dinosaurs was 2 hours long. I'm not going to listen to him for 2 hours to prove you wrong. It did mention specifically that dinosaurs were on the ark, though. In this case, I'll give you a win for lack of substantial evidence.

However, weren't the other claims ridiculous enough?

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

The only video I can find on dinosaurs was 2 hours long. I'm not going to listen to him for 2 hours to prove you wrong. It did mention specifically that dinosaurs were on the ark, though. In this case, I'll give you a win for lack of substantial evidence.

However, weren't the other claims ridiculous enough?

If I remember, Hovind says that dinosaurs COULD have built the ark, if Noah was able to get them properly trained.

I will find the audio tonight when I get home.

[RNR]

He starts talking about the Oklahoma City bombing at 1:44

[RNR]

This guy is entertaining. The video is out of focus, but no more so than this guys batshit crazy beliefs~

[RNR]

Ok I will admit I am having too much fun watching this guy

[ReynardMuldrake]

"There is a lot of cover-up over Oklahoma City… it is pretty well certain it was not a truck bomb… I think there's a whole lot more to it."

Kent Hovind, Creation Science Hour, August 7, 2003