Yes! The religion and science conflict, only cuter!

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Well, the good humour didn’t last long, did it?

Soon a sectarian war will break out, and when the dust from that settles you’ll be left with a puzzle that has some pieces missing and a couple of dead ducks. All three of them still arguing furiously on the thread.

edit on 28/11/11 by Astyanax because: of propositions. Sorry, I mean prepositions.




posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   



Religion says god said it is this, and it is, case closed, send in your donations.



Ho Ho Ho.. nicely put...

PA



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by packro

Last I checked it only affects people who know they are being prayed for


lol so that means prayer works? which could mean there might be a God? what exactly are you trying to say?

anyways... if anything... everyone should be agnostic. to not be is illogical. if you "worship" science theories then you're just as religious as any Bible thumper...



LOL... um, no it doesn't.... it means that we have an excellent working example, with evidence, of the placebo effect. You read it wrong mate..... a common problem I'm afraid....

Man....I'm not even going to start on your second sentence...ok, I've got to comment...

I agree wholeheartedly that everyone should be agnostic.... none of us know that god categorically does not exist, and to suggest otherwise is arrogance...

You, however, seem to ignore the principle of faith andhow it just does not apply to science. Science provides a hypothesis, then attempts to prove/disprove that hypothesis with trial and error and observation. This basic scientific principle is not present in religious theory/thinking.

Scientists do not "worship" theories my friend... they build ideas based on provable results. To believe scientific theory does not require any faith.... the answers are there for all to see. Nor does Science teach us that we are not worthy of answering these questions.... it challenges us to do so... just as the rest of the universe does also...

PA
edit on 28-11-2011 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-11-2011 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 





Scientists do not "worship" theories my friend... they build ideas based on provable results. To believe scientific theory does not require any faith.... the answers are there for all to see. Nor does Science teach us that we are not worthy of answering these questions.... it challenges us to do so... just as the rest of the universe does also...


As well, Science strives to prove itself, be it positive or negative. Science makes no claims that can't be investigated, it really is that simple.

Anyone claiming the contrary is simply ignorant of the scientific method, and how it works.

To build a clear picture of our reality, we must investigate this.

Evolution does NOT rule out a creator. We still can't say where that initial "spark" came from. what we HAVE proven is that the creationist story of god creating everything as it is now, is false.

Science looks at the evidence (piece of the puzzle) and draws conclusions from the evidence
religion ignores the evidence that doesn't fit and says "god did it"

It really is that simple. I'm not even saying religion is wrong. Religion is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to science.

1 uses evidence, experiments that are REPEATABLE and proof
The other uses stories and dogma.

Beyond that, you are basing your views on a book written by man that is provably false. The earth is not flat. The sun does not orbit the earth, there ARE other planets in our solar system.

to name a few.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
edit on 28-11-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by knightsofcydonia
 


Its funny that you say its tired and unenlightened, yet you still don't have a valid counter arguement other then to tell the poster that they are spiritually immature.

it is quite unintelligent to follow a book whose author know one can verify. And don't say the original is locked up somewhere, no one has ever seen it or verified that either.

If conspiracy theories were about verifying the unverifiable, then religion and the bible get first slot.

So if your tired of this arguement, then you need to come up with a better answer, and saying you just have to believe is a tacky copout.
edit on 28-11-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   


It's certainly not Oxford.
It's the London Riots.
Godless atheistic secularism run amuck.

Yet there in the middle of it all
the single miraculous rescue
contains a green cross.

Who's suffering from serious denial here?

.?.

David Grouchy
edit on 28-11-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Good thing life isn't as easy as a kid's sized puzzle. It can't even be related to a jigsaw puzzle. It's more like an ethereal puzzle that you can only feel out, or theorize. I'm glad to see that science continually bashes religious minds, but this is ridiculous. This topic should be renamed "the conflict between science and the uneducated." I consider myself religious and I myself can tell what is observable, what is "real", and what is not.

The difference is I know that there are some things that we will never be able to explain. Or more specifically - we will never be able to answer the question "Why?" - such as "Why are we here?" To be honest we will never answer that, but some science followers (such as many who went nuts at this comic) are too ignorant to understand the full complexity of life. I definitely know that evolution exists - there are mounds of evidence to prove that it is what explains the diversity of life. But we will never know why it is here. We will never know where it came from.

This is when you can start to bridge into the religious world. Hell come on over to the philosophical world. That one piece to evolution is missing, but you sure as hell don't see a duck on the box OR the rest of the pieces together to constitute the whole picture of it.

TL;DR - This comic is a loaded analogy.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
While I totally enjoyed your presentation and creativity, and without a shadow of a doubt agree with you on your viewpoint, it must be said that you are specifically referring to religion vs science, not spiritualy vs science. Correct?


I'm pretty sure OP is referring to Religion and the box as The Book or holy text. Spirtuality does not require a god, imo, i believe spirituality as in energy, chi, karma etc.


Ditto! Same here. Religion really has lost its spirituality, and I love this OP's illustration of the difference between accepting blindly and using your given intellect to get to reality.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I see that many of you have not watched any of the videos posted on page 2. Why? Because you are still buying into the religion of evolution and some of you now have stated that it is now a mix of evolution and creation. That sure sounds like exactly what the lead fallen angel always does, mixes some truth with lies. If you watch the videos you would understand that the evolution religion is constantly using bad science and constantly proven wrong. Almost all their experimental results are later retracted and said to be wrong but yet they continue to print them as if they were facts. EX: Carbon Dating is bogus! They have taken samples from living creatures and dated them to be thousands of years. Now that's great science, A?
I retract my earlier statement that Kent Hovind's mission was to prove the Bible with science. I do believe he helps with that but his true mission was to defeat the devils attempt at using evolution to claim souls, that is to those who listen. What happened to examining all the evidence?
Again, I do not agree with everything Kent says:
I do not agree that the mark of Cain is being a giant. The mark on Cain was a blessing not the curse. Kent gets that right. Nowhere in the Bible does YHVH say not to kill the giants/nephilim, in fact most of the time they were to kill them because they were at war with them. BUT the mark was given to Cain so no one would kill him or his decendents. (Cain accepted his punishment and seeks protection against being slain, YHVH granted him his petition.) So that fact along with the Book of Enoch proves that the mark was not being big.
I do not believe in his opinion of the Book of Enoch.
I do not believe we see the world/space for what it truly is. I do not trust any religion to tell me what the Word of YHVH is. I do not trust our government to tell us the truth AND I do not believe NASA gives us everything they know. I do believe that we (people) are going to be changed in form, at that point our eyes will change and we will see things for what they truly are. Just because in this fallen state of being, we think we see the earth revolving around the sun does not make it true. The redemption of the people by YHVH is not complete, we are still blind (we see but we do not see things how they truly are). For all we know using science talk, the sun could simply be the back side of a black hole and the fire ball in the sky is what a black hole does to all the light it takes in. We do not know what happens on the back side of a black hole.
So what do I see as the problem. All religions, whether it's science (faith that science will save us or give us truth), the Jewish religion, the Catholic/Christian religion, ETC., ALL HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED BY THE DEVIL. We live in a fallen world. Because of that we can not get the big picture from following any religion, including science. I read the Bible so I will use that as an example. I know that the KJV is NOT the entire word of YHVH. It is a collection of books voted on by men to direct a religion the way they wanted it to go. I'm not even sure if I buy into every book included in the Bible, BUT I do believe that it is the largest collection of truth out there. So why does it seem to have holes? Because the books that were not included fill in those holes, like the Book of Enoch. I would suggest others but I am still reading them and have not yet been able to compare them to the Torah which is the true word of YHVH. If it does not line up with Torah then it is not from YHVH it's that simple.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BelieveInEnoch
 


People didn't watch the videos because this topic is about how religion refuses to acknowledge proven science, while that video has nothing to do with the topic. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it proves the OP perfectly, because your video is nothing more than a bunch of faulty assumptions that are demonstrably false, for example "carbon dating is bogus". If that's really how you feel, then please post the scientific data that shows it is false. There are tons of methods of dating and they all concur with each other. You shouldn't believe anything Hovind says. He's a liar and a con man. All you have to do is read some very basic science books to debunk him and his nonsense about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans. There's no evidence to suggest anything close to that.


For all we know using science talk, the sun could simply be the back side of a black hole and the fire ball in the sky is what a black hole does to all the light it takes in. We do not know what happens on the back side of a black hole.
For all we know the flying spaghetti monster created us and causes rain on us when he has to use the bathroom. Science talk? What part of your statement is science? Sorry, there is no science out there that supports the biblical creation story.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Myollinir
 





To be honest we will never answer that, but some science followers (such as many who went nuts at this comic) are too ignorant to understand the full complexity of life.


Huh? Science isn't trying to solve the esoteric notion of "why" we are here. Science is merely a method for understanding the world around us. Science can never tell us for SURE what came before the universe, all it can do is describe the set of laws that make the universe function.

too ignorant? how is actually using SCIENCE to actually PROVE things and make DISCOVERIES ignorant?

Anyways, you highlight a good point. Not all those who would be considered "religious" hate science. But we rarely hear from the likes of those people, no, we get people like those posting in here.

"the bible is real, deal with it"

Well no, i won't deal with it, it's demonstrably false in many of the claims.

The part I don't understand is why some feel evolution rules out a "creator". It doesn't at all.

I've said it a million times before....

How else would a "creator" ensure a biologically diverse planet such as our own, without evolution?

Science can't disprove "god" but it can disprove many of the claims attributed to "god". It's up to religion to provide "proof" of their god, and creationism, if they wish to enter the scientific realm.

And here lies the problem, most of those who believe in "creationism" demand it be taught in school along side the "THEORY of evolution". Thats bunk. If you want to spread your religious indoctrination in school, fine, keep it in social studies or philosophy, but to give "creationism" any scientific merit is despicable it's not science, it's not even pseudoscience



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


@Phishy - I actually just wrote a paper about that recently, on how evolution and intelligent design aren't two apples in the same hand-basket.

To be honest - creationism DOESN'T revolve itself in the world of science... it really is like what you're saying. IF we are to put subjects into categories.

Now when I say ignorant, I mean science is ignorant to the fact that there are some things we won't define... but some people make some pretty large claims (such as there is no creator due to evolution) from what we divulge out of science. Thus is my definition "complexity of life" - as in we have to live with things we can define and live with things we can't define... and understand that it is undefinable. You can't be too pompous with life else lose the vision of the future.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by BelieveInEnoch
 


People didn't watch the videos because this topic is about how religion refuses to acknowledge proven science, while that video has nothing to do with the topic. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it proves the OP perfectly, because your video is nothing more than a bunch of faulty assumptions that are demonstrably false, for example "carbon dating is bogus". If that's really how you feel, then please post the scientific data that shows it is false. There are tons of methods of dating and they all concur with each other. You shouldn't believe anything Hovind says. He's a liar and a con man. All you have to do is read some very basic science books to debunk him and his nonsense about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans. There's no evidence to suggest anything close to that.


For all we know using science talk, the sun could simply be the back side of a black hole and the fire ball in the sky is what a black hole does to all the light it takes in. We do not know what happens on the back side of a black hole.
For all we know the flying spaghetti monster created us and causes rain on us when he has to use the bathroom. Science talk? What part of your statement is science? Sorry, there is no science out there that supports the biblical creation story.


Thank you Barcs for telling me why you have not watched the videos and why you believe others have not watched the videos. I am not being sarcastic either.

As far as the proven science that religions refuse to acknowledge:
Will you please give me some examples?
How can you say/know that at least Kent does not cover those proven science topics that religions do not accept? The text books are full of lies.
Why have you become the expert of what is true science reports? Kent covers hundred of supposed proven science results that are later retracted and said to be wrong but they continue to print them.

As far as proof for carbon dating uselessness: www.youtube.com... He also cover other methods used to date things, like the geologic column, and their circle reasoning of dating bones to the age of the rocks they are near, but they respond to the age of the rocks by the age of the bones that the rocks were near, its called circle reasoning, and that my friend is NOT good science.

What has Kent Hovind lied about?
Who has he conned?
What evolution science religion books am I to read that debunks Kent? The ones Kent has debunked.

Dinosaurs living with man: So all the evidence that Kent gives that dinos did live with humans is what then?

My science talk: yeah sorry, I agree with you there, I meant in simple terms. BUT there are lots of scientists, science books and science tests done that do prove the creation story.

I thought science was to look at all evidence but so far from you all I have heard is that you have only looked at one side. Are you as evolution scientist, not looking for truth but looking only to prove your theory because other wise I do not understand how you can make the statements you just made.

Please do not take offence to any of this, I am not trying to offend you, besides iron sharpens iron, so rub all you want!



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

As far as the proven science that religions refuse to acknowledge:
Will you please give me some examples?

Evolution, big bang theory are 2 great examples of science that is misunderstood or ignored by many. It's not all religious folks that try to pretend they are wrong or don't exist, it's usually just the fundamentalists that interpret the genesis story as absolute literal truth. Science doesn't conflict with the idea of god.


How can you say/know that at least Kent does not cover those proven science topics that religions do not accept?

He lies and spreads dishonest information. It is not scientific by a long shot. Search youtube for Hovind debunk and you will find tons of scientific minded people explaining exactly how and why he is wrong, citing scientific sources.


The text books are full of lies.

Which books? Which lies?


Why have you become the expert of what is true science reports?

I'm certainly not an expert, but science is a topic that fascinates me, so I spend a good amount of my free time reading about it. Science is based on experiments that are repeatable. It isn't guesswork, like Hovind's. If you have any scientific data to support his findings I'd love to see it, but some of the stuff he conjures up to explain things is absurd.


Kent covers hundred of supposed proven science results that are later retracted and said to be wrong but they continue to print them.

Which results are you talking about? Could you please post them? I've never seen anything from him that utilizes the proper scientific methods. He starts with a conclusion and cherry picks evidence to fit his theory. Science makes conclusions based on facts.


As far as proof for carbon dating uselessness: www.youtube.com... He also cover other methods used to date things, like the geologic column, and their circle reasoning of dating bones to the age of the rocks they are near, but they respond to the age of the rocks by the age of the bones that the rocks were near, its called circle reasoning, and that my friend is NOT good science.

That isn't how carbon dating works.

en.wikipedia.org...

Raw, i.e. uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis[citation needed]). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.


What Hovind is claiming is dishonest and completely wrong. It isn't circular logic at all.


What has Kent Hovind lied about? Who has he conned?

Humans living with dinosaurs, the literal genesis story being backed by science, evidence of the great flood, carbon dating, etc. A better question would be what hasn't he lied about. Look at the debunk videos. He claims to be a science guy, but ignores science and claims he is "interpreting the evidence differently". Also, he's currently in jail for tax fraud.


What evolution science religion books am I to read that debunks Kent? The ones Kent has debunked.

Kent hasn't debunked any science at all. He twists it to fit his worldview. Watch those debunks. They go point for point and explain exactly why he is wrong, verifiable by sources.

Dinosaurs living with man: So all the evidence that Kent gives that dinos did live with humans is what then?

False.

BUT there are lots of scientists, science books and science tests done that do prove the creation story.

Please post the scientific experiments that prove the creation story. Just because some random guy in a youtube video says it, doesn't make it true.

I thought science was o look at all evidence but so far from you all I have heard is that you have only looked at one side. Are you as evolution scientist, not looking for truth but looking only to prove your theory because other wise I do not understand how you can make the statements you just made.

There is no scientific evidence for the other side. That's my point. We don't know everything about evolution, but we know it happened, else god made it appear that way.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


"Evolution, big bang theory are 2 great examples of science that is misunderstood or ignored by many. It's not all religious folks that try to pretend they are wrong or don't exist, it's usually just the fundamentalists that interpret the genesis story as absolute literal truth. Science doesn't conflict with the idea of god."

What evidence is there for the "Evolution" theory and the "big bang theory"? None. Tthey are theories not good science. They definitely are not theories that have been proved by science! So, you still have not given me examples of "proven science that religions have refused to accept". We can agree on though that science does not disprove YHVH. If the Bible is true, how can it?

"He lies and spreads dishonest information. It is not scientific by a long shot. Search youtube for Hovind debunk and you will find tons of scientific minded people explaining exactly how and why he is wrong, citing scientific sources."

What has he lied about, what dishonest info is he spreading? He is however scientific. He will give how science has disproved various evolution claims, with the science used to disprove the claim, with either, what the Bible says, before, after and sometimes throughout his proof of the false claim. That's were the evolutionist refuse to listen. They never explain why, what Kent gave as scientific evidence to disprove the false claim they just move on to something else. I did search YouTube for "Hovind Debunk". I'm in the sixth video (of the 1st video listed) of the debate between Kent and the Doc (sorry don't see his name and I did not write it down) and so far nothing has been debunked, in fact most of the time the doc doesn't even answer the questions asked. Then when Kent replies to what the doc went forward with (instead of answering the question), Kent is able to debunk with 30 sec. and spends the rest of the time answering with truth. So, maybe you should provide me with a certain video and we can talk about that particular video and topics within.

"Which books? Which lies?"

All text books that contain the evolution religion theory. What lies? Millions of years old, bones show evolution, carbon dating, geological column, all the various examples of proof of evolution like Lucy, which most of them are made up of 2 bones or less and some of those 2 bones were found miles apart from each other.

"I'm certainly not an expert, but science is a topic that fascinates me, so I spend a good amount of my free time reading about it. Science is based on experiments that are repeatable. It isn't guesswork, like Hovind's. If you have any scientific data to support his findings I'd love to see it, but some of the stuff he conjures up to explain things is absurd."

Good science is great, I agree. I do not need to provide scientific data for his findings when he gives them. So, if he is wrong prove him wrong. Prove the scientific data that he gives wrong. Like I said above you quit listen because he can debunk evolution very quickly and then you have to listen to what you do not want to hear.

"Which results are you talking about? Could you please post them? I've never seen anything from him that utilizes the proper scientific methods. He starts with a conclusion and cherry picks evidence to fit his theory. Science makes conclusions based on facts".

I listed them above. I thought you study science?????? You claim that Kent does not utilize proper scientific methods because he starts with a conclusion. Yeah, it called a hypothesis! But you are right GOOD science makes claims based on whether the hypothesis was right or wrong, not theories.

"That isn't how carbon dating works."

I'm not sure what your claim is that Kent got wrong about the process of carbon dating. The info given does not answer how in any way they could understand how much carbon was in the air to be absorbed 1,000,000 years ago, yet alone 3,000. What about the fact that they have taken samples from living creatures and dated them to be thousands of years old? What about the fact that 2 samples taken from different parts of the SAME (dead) woolly mammoth vary by tens of thousands of years.
(continued)



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
(continued from above)
"Humans living with dinosaurs, the literal genesis story being backed by science, evidence of the great flood, carbon dating, etc. A better question would be what hasn't he lied about. Look at the debunk videos. He claims to be a science guy, but ignores science and claims he is "interpreting the evidence differently". Also, he's currently in jail for tax fraud."

You have said what you think he lied about but gave no evidence. Is there any one video that debunks him that is better than the others? What factual/proven science has he ignored? He is in jail for tax fraud and this is ATS, home of the conspiracy theories. Did you know that by the IRS's own tax code, US citizens are not to pay taxes?

Federal Income Taxes are for aliens (from other countries). So, as usual Kent had nuggets to stand up and do what we all should being doing. Sounds like the people behind the evolution religion lie, are also the elect few.

“Kent hasn't debunked any science at all. He twists it to fit his worldview. Watch those debunks. They go point for point and explain exactly why he is wrong, verifiable by sources.”

Please give me a link to one you want me to watch and then we can talk about that link, movies, or series of movies

“Please post the scientific experiments that prove the creation story. Just because some random guy in a youtube video says it, doesn't make it true.”

Ok, maybe your right here, they don’t “Prove the creation story” but they sure do point to it. I did on page 2. However, Kent does prove on many topics how the evolution theory is bogus.

“There is no scientific evidence for the other side. That's my point. We don't know everything about evolution, but we know it happened, else god made it appear that way.”

If there is no evidence, then please single at least one thing, you personally believe that Kent has wrong, otherwise you are just denying the evidence he gives and please tell me what is wrong about the evidence provided by Kent. It’s hard to know about something that didn’t happen. If it happened and YHVH made it appear that way, it was the fastest week of evolution the world has seen.

Oh yeah, exactly what form or definition of evolution are you talking about anyways?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

What evidence is there for the "Evolution" theory and the "big bang theory"? None. Tthey are theories not good science.


www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

That is exactly what I'm talking about. People like Hovind completely ignore this, and when people confront him on it, he changes the subject. Go through those links and pick out exactly what part of the science you think is wrong, and explain why.


He will give how science has disproved various evolution claims, with the science used to disprove the claim, with either, what the Bible says, before, after and sometimes throughout his proof of the false claim. That's were the evolutionist refuse to listen. They never explain why, what Kent gave as scientific evidence to disprove the false claim they just move on to something else.

Please provide specific examples cited by sources that "disprove" evolution as claimed by Hovind. Kent is not scientific in the least, and his evidence is easily debunked. Give me ANY example he shows and I'll debunk it. Give me his best argument.


All text books that contain the evolution religion theory. What lies? Millions of years old, bones show evolution, carbon dating, geological column, all the various examples of proof of evolution like Lucy, which most of them are made up of 2 bones or less and some of those 2 bones were found miles apart from each other.

Evolution: not a lie. I posted the evidence above. Fossils and DNA show evolution in action
Carbon dating: I specifically showed you how what he said was wrong
You didn't debunk anything about the geological column. Lucy has way more than 2 bones, as do SEVERAL early hominids.


Good science is great, I agree. I do not need to provide scientific data for his findings when he gives them. So, if he is wrong prove him wrong. Prove the scientific data that he gives wrong. Like I said above you quit listen because he can debunk evolution very quickly and then you have to listen to what you do not want to hear.

I don't have to prove him wrong. He needs to prove himself correct if he wants to claim what he's saying is scientific. That's called burden of proof. If YOU make a claim, YOU need to back it up with evidence. It doesn't hold true simply because nobody has proven it wrong. You just want to believe him, it has nothing to do with science or evolution. His view appeals to your gut feeling and that's pretty much it. If you want to claim he actually uses legitimate science experiments then provide it for me so I can show you how its wrong. I'm not going to debunk every thing he's ever said. That would take all day. Give me specific examples along with his scientific experiments that prove it and I'll debunk with ease as thousands of others have already done.


I listed them above.

You gave me no evidence, no facts, and no sources to back anything up. You just list 3 very broad topics, you did not post any actual evidence or scientific data. Your evidence thus far is "Kent Hovind said it, so it's true". I want links to the actual science experiments he did, backed up by data. Not hearsay from some youtube guy who's in jail for tax fraud and is demonstrably wrong in virtually everything he claims.


I thought you study science?????? You claim that Kent does not utilize proper scientific methods because he starts with a conclusion. Yeah, it called a hypothesis! But you are right GOOD science makes claims based on whether the hypothesis was right or wrong, not theories.

What evidence has Hovind showed to prove his all powerful creator that made the earth in 6 literal days? Where is the evidence that man lived with dinosaur or that the grand canyon was formed in a few days. He doesn't have a single shred of evidence for that. If Hovind followed true scientific methods, he wouldn't ignore the countless facts that he does to ensure his conclusion isn't wrong. He cherry picks, and the evidence for evolution is gargantuan.


I'm not sure what your claim is that Kent got wrong about the process of carbon dating. The info given does not answer how in any way they could understand how much carbon was in the air to be absorbed 1,000,000 years ago, yet alone 3,000. What about the fact that they have taken samples from living creatures and dated them to be thousands of years old? What about the fact that 2 samples taken from different parts of the SAME (dead) woolly mammoth vary by tens of thousands of years.

I explained it above. It's based on radioactive decay of certain isotopes. It's not circular as he claims it to be. Please post the science experiment that dated a living creature to thousands of years ago? You need to understand that carbon dating is only accurate to 50,000 years or so. It's not exact. You couldn't get a date like May 25th, 120,000,000 BC.
edit on 1-12-2011 by Barcs because: quote fix



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
www.talkorigins.org...
Read this about radiometric dating and the age of the earth.


You have said what you think he lied about but gave no evidence. Is there any one video that debunks him that is better than the others? What factual/proven science has he ignored? He is in jail for tax fraud and this is ATS, home of the conspiracy theories. Did you know that by the IRS's own tax code, US citizens are not to pay taxes?

You gave what you thought he told the truth about but gave no evidence. The debunk videos answer everything, and you have not given me any specific evidence to debunk only broad topics. You need to cite me specific examples of what his claim is, and the experiments that back it up. If you can't do this, you have no reason to assume he is right. You don't assume somebody's right without evidence, so it is now on you to post this objective evidence. That is how we start this. Tax fraud is still fraud, and regardless of your opinion of the tax code, cheating your taxes will land you in prison.


Please give me a link to one you want me to watch and then we can talk about that link, movies, or series of movies

I can't get youtube at work, so I'll find and post the better ones tonight.


Ok, maybe your right here, they don’t “Prove the creation story” but they sure do point to it. I did on page 2. However, Kent does prove on many topics how the evolution theory is bogus.

No he did not. He lies and twists evidence. Again, please provide his evidence so I know exactly what his claim is and the evidence behind it. Then I'll debunk it. I'm not going to do the research for you. Post what you want debunked, and don't give me a broad topic. Be specific and include the scientific data.


If there is no evidence, then please single at least one thing, you personally believe that Kent has wrong, otherwise you are just denying the evidence he gives and please tell me what is wrong about the evidence provided by Kent. It’s hard to know about something that didn’t happen. If it happened and YHVH made it appear that way, it was the fastest week of evolution the world has seen.

Oh yeah, exactly what form or definition of evolution are you talking about anyways?


I gave you examples about how he is wrong about carbon dating, and provided links based on science that show evidence for the big bang, evolution and carbon dating methods. Please give me specific claims, or debunk the evidence I posted. I'm not going to go watch all his nonsense videos again to look up examples of his lies for you. He lies about everything. Give me examples of what you think he's truthful about that proves his case and I'll debunk.

Evolutionary science only has one definition, which is explaining how life on earth went from a single celled organism billions of years ago to the diversity of life on earth today.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   


Here's a good Hovind debunk and shows many dishonest examples.

-the nebula picture that he used to describe the big bang
-the 6 definitions of evolution
-his example about the sun losing energy, and the destructive nature of energy
-his made up conversation with a "professor" where he quoted a 5th grade science book
-his definition of the big bang
-planets spinning backwards
-his equation about the moon touching the earth

He's not scientific. He makes things up and twists certain pieces of evidence to fit his fundamentalist views. He's a good speaker and he's entertaining, but that's pretty much it.

Every thing debunked is sourced and referenced, and the information can be found with a simple google search.


Part 2


Part 3





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join