Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Tis the season on FR for Agnostics and Atheists. Interesting time of the season to come out and in some cases out of the closet."

Who has come out of the closet? Please explain.

[RightWhale]

Exactly

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Some evidence of what a *sharp knife* he is:

The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement ... Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it. It was the philosophy of evolution that drove them (Hovind, Ch 4).

Five billion people [yes, he says billion] could drown in Loch Ness, and no one would show above the surface. It is a big lake. . . . As of the 1960s, there were over 9,000 sightings of the Loch Ness Monster. Today, there have been over 11,000 such sightings (Hovind, Ch 2).

The Trail of Tears was where the Cherokee Indians were driven out of the Chattanooga area all the way to Oklahoma. ... Evolution is responsible for what happened to the Indians. How any Indian can believe in evolution just blows my mind. ... [T]he evolution theory is what destroyed them (Hovind, Ch 4).

I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it. (Hovind, Ch 6).

Adam and Eve probably had hundreds of children. They lived 800 years, and one could have a lot of children in 800 years (Hovind, Ch 6).

There has been research that indicates nearly all homosexuals come from families that have a weak father figure, and a dominant mother ... research shows that there is a social link where the children are raised to be wimps or whatever (Hovind, Ch 6).

from "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution"

Trail of tears happened in the 1830's; Darwin published 1859. lol

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/6756_unmasking_the_false_prophet_of_9_1_1999.asp

[RightWingNilla]

National Geographic Magazine and The Readers Digest.

LOL. Maybe they should try "World Weekly News".

[Baraonda]

I'm directing you to post #255, again.

Will you at least have the courtesey of admitting that that quotation was not mine, but came from the first para at that link?

[elbucko]

..if you [Baraonda] suggest that there's any direct evidence of him outside of the New Testament.

Good point. There is more empirical evidence for Evolution than there is for Jesus Christ. I find that the faithful, who are fearful of evolution, tend to be fearfully lacking in faith.

[Uri’el-2012]

One more question: When you go to your Mensa meetings do you folks discuss the merits of Jack Chick?

The meetings were Intertel.

I'm not acquainted with Jack Chick, is he a friend of yours?

b'shem Y'shua

[Baraonda]

courtesey = courtesy

Sorry about the spelling.

[RightWhale]

Takes genius to come up with all that. P T Barnum was a genius, too.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Takes genius to come up with all that. P T Barnum was a genius, too."

Yeah, but I kinda like Barnum.

[Texas Eagle]

... evolution is the “dumbest and most dangerous theory on planet Earth.”

Sounds about right to me. No God, no accountability.

[RightWingNilla]

Quite a little circus on display today!

(Once again...)

Send in the clowns (theyre already here).

[Dimensio]

Look, my contention is evolution is not proven

Absolutely no theory in science is ever proven. Why single out evolution?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sounds about right to me. No God, no accountability."

Evolution, like every other scientific theory, has absolutely nothing to say for or against the existence of a deity.

[Dimensio]

Do you have an actual argument to present for your side, or do you just like to toss out inane one-liners because you have nothing to refute the mountains of evidence in support of evolution?

[shuckmaster]

MyResponse: Please, show me where I made that quote at the very top. I'm waiting...

post 201. Now, stop lying.

[Stultis]

I know unbelievers consider it foolish to take God at his Word but my heart soars when I consider His creation and the beautiful children that he formed in my womb.

Thanks! You raise a good point here for antievolutionists, especially of the primitive and naive Hovind variety, to consider. Like most other creationists, and as the Bible multiply and affirmatively asserts, God himself "formed" your children in the womb. And yet I'm sure that you have no objection to human embryology and development being taught matter of factly as a natural biological process in textbooks. (At least, having long followed the antievolution movement, I'm not aware of a single such objection ever having been raised.)

Thus it is clearly possible, and commonly done even by the most theologically conservative and devout, to fully accept and affirm Biblical claims that God is personally, intimately and actively involved in a process, and simultaneous accept a purely naturalistic treatment of the selfsame process for scientific purposes.

[Texas Eagle]

Evolution, like every other scientific theory, has absolutely nothing to say for or against the existence of a deity.How conveeeeeeeenient.

[Dimensio]

The problem with Hovind's "debates" is that he fires off rapid-fire lies one after the other. Each one would take quite some time to fully debunk, but there's no time, so Hovind "appears" to be the winner even though his entire argument is supported by falsehoods.

How do you explain that the two wooly mammoth samples dated at vastly different ages actually came from two completely different specimens when Hovind's already gone off onto a tangent about stellar formation (which the theory of evolution does not address at all -- but Hovind, liar that he is, includes it as part of the theory)?

[happyhomemaker]

Out of curiosity, and I mean no offense, but if God (rather than a man) created the children in your womb, what's so special about Mary?

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins." Fantastic question for the Christmas season. Maybe some of the posters are unaware of the story :-)