Guest Guest Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I know Kent Hovind is mostly the big apologist for IFB's, but I wonder if you guys know some things about him... First, I want to say, I'm a born-again, Bible-believing, literal 6-day 6000 year old earth creationist, and I do have some respect for Mr.Hovind, but there are some things that you might want to know about what he's done and what he's said. Where I respect his intentions greatly, I most certainly DON'T appreciate or condone some of the things he's done. Allow me to explain... As a young earth creationist, Kent Hovind uses some questionable sciences--very questionable. Where he does present some truth to his arguments, there are plenty of times where he just straight up lies. Such as the age of comets. 10000 years? Completely made up. We have no way of knowing how long comets live. His analogy with time and trying to prove the existence of God may work at a first glance, but is quite illogical and completely messed up. The earth is NOT slowing down at a rate of 1 second per year. It's more like one second per 714 years! These are just a few examples of the poor science and research Mr.Hovind has used. I'm not here to bash Kent or anything, but to warn fellow Christians of the false sciences this unaccredited doctor has presented. I want you guys to be well informed and aware of what may be harmful to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Annie Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 I know Kent Hovind is mostly the big apologist for IFB's Really? I've never thought of him as such. I don't think there's any way to prove scientifically that there is or is not a God, and I think anyone who tries to do so is misguided. (I don't know whether KH does this; I know next to nothing about him.) I've read a little about him, including about his recent run-in with the law. I think it's a mistake to assume that KH is a "big apologist" for IFB's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 At first I thought this was going to be a thread talking about his "tax evasion" thing, the reason he's in prison, but I'm glad to see that it isn't on that topic. (Believe me, that one has been discussed to death here already... not that you would've known that, since you're new here, but I thought I'd let you know in case you were thinking about starting a topic on that) First of all, it's been a while since I've seen his videos, so I don't remember the age of the comets thing. I do remember him saying something about the earth slowing down like one second per year, and even if that's not true and it's one second per 714 years, that would still mean the earth would've been spinning incredibly fast at first if it was 4.5 billion years old. In fact, it would have been spinning 6,302,521 times faster at the beginning of its existence than it is now. That right there is still absurd, and evolutionists would only be able to find some kind of "theory" to prove that the earth has only been slowing down recently, and wasn't going so fast when it first began evolving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 I agree that Hovind seems to use inaccurate data at times when it seems to support his position, and I am not a big fan of him for that reason among others. Yes, many evolutionists do the same thing, but that does not excuse him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 At first I thought this was going to be a thread talking about his "tax evasion" thing, the reason he's in prison, but I'm glad to see that it isn't on that topic. (Believe me, that one has been discussed to death here already... not that you would've known that, since you're new here, but I thought I'd let you know in case you were thinking about starting a topic on that) First of all, it's been a while since I've seen his videos, so I don't remember the age of the comets thing. I do remember him saying something about the earth slowing down like one second per year, and even if that's not true and it's one second per 714 years, that would still mean the earth would've been spinning incredibly fast at first if it was 4.5 billion years old. In fact, it would have been spinning 6,302,521 times faster at the beginning of its existence than it is now. That right there is still absurd, and evolutionists would only be able to find some kind of "theory" to prove that the earth has only been slowing down recently, and wasn't going so fast when it first began evolving. welllll, there's a lil error in your math there. You got the right number, but not exactly the right name for the number. That's how many seconds would have been lost. But that is a great point, 6,302,521 seconds is WAYYY more than the 86,400 we have today. And btw, the EARTH never evolved according to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with BIOLOGICAL evolution, and has NOTHING to do with the origin of the earth. I just want you to know that the next time you talk to an evolutionist, because that's fingernails down the chalkboard for them... and pretty much for me too. Because one thing I've noticed about hardcore evolutionists, if you look ignorant at any one point in evolution, you're all the sudden an idiot and they won't listen to you... so yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 He has a good stage presence and makes good use of humour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deafnva77 Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 Personally, I think Kent need to update his argument. Science is always changing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deafnva77 Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 The theory of evolution deals with BIOLOGICAL evolution, and has NOTHING to do with the origin of the earth. While evolution doesn't apply to earth , The changes is still there, they don't believe the earth happened overnight. Nor grand canyon. The Earth keep changing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 Never heard of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Personally' date=' I think Kent need to update his argument. Science is always changing.[/quote'] He can't really update his videos with updated arguments, because he's in prison right now. I think his son may be continuing his ministry, but I'm not totally sure on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Danny Carlton Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 And btw, the EARTH never evolved according to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with BIOLOGICAL evolution, and has NOTHING to do with the origin of the earth. I just want you to know that the next time you talk to an evolutionist, because that's fingernails down the chalkboard for them... and pretty much for me too. Because one thing I've noticed about hardcore evolutionists, if you look ignorant at any one point in evolution, you're all the sudden an idiot and they won't listen to you... so yeah. Evolutionists generally think anyone's a moron who doesn't agree with their religion. They nit pick over semantics, yet swallow completely absurd presumptions. I really don't care what evolutionists think, since they have to suspend logic and reason to believe their religion in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted September 12, 2008 Members Share Posted September 12, 2008 Evolutionists generally think anyone's a moron who doesn't agree with their religion. I believe in evolution and I certainly don't think everyone who doesn't share my belief is a moron! I have been told I'm a moron/fool/blind/belial/infidel/nazi for holding these beliefs by a few Christians over the years, however, so "we're" not the only ones name-calling. :frog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deafnva77 Posted September 12, 2008 Members Share Posted September 12, 2008 Evolutionists generally think anyone's a moron who doesn't agree with their religion. They nit pick over semantics, yet swallow completely absurd presumptions. I really don't care what evolutionists think, since they have to suspend logic and reason to believe their religion in the first place. I understand what you mean, They like take little things that shouldn't be a big deal and use it as if we are ignorance. But they can be ignorance about faith themselves.people can't explain every single details just for their sake. What they don't realize is that there are some christians who used to wholeheartly believe and understand evolution (even have a College degree on it too). you would never guess they would become a creationist christian later in life. Were they ignorance then? no, they just decided to put their faith above evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Salyan Posted September 12, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 12, 2008 I believe in evolution and I certainly don't think everyone who doesn't share my belief is a moron! I have been told I'm a moron/fool/blind/belial/infidel/nazi for holding these beliefs by a few Christians over the years' date=' however, so "we're" not the only ones name-calling. :frog[/quote'] You seriously got called a nazi? That's horrible! Re Kent Hovind, he is fairly popular in my IFB group (I think it's because he's KVJ). I don't really like his presentations, though -- partly because of bad arguments, partly because of a very self-centred response he once sent to an AiG article (it was on poor arguments that shouldn't be used to defend creation -- not aimed at anyone particular, but he responded as if it was. Granted, someone else could have sent it to him and told him it was aimed at him.), and partly because of his attitude in the presentations. Ken Ham may have displayed some bad attitudes in inter-ministry relations, but his attitude on stage is matter-of-fact, not rude. Now if only AiG would go KJV! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted September 12, 2008 Members Share Posted September 12, 2008 What is "AiG?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.