Kent Hovind

[qwerty guy]

It wasn't answered so here we go:

Kent Hovind's argument about comet's being 10,000 years old:

They are at the most, 10,000 years old, given the size, rate of decline, rate of new comets in relation to rate of comets destroyed in relation to comets still around, longest orbit of a comet, historical records of comets and how they appeared in relation to how they appear today...

Research it and you'll find it's not just a flippant comment he makes. Personally, unless one is heading to my house... I don't care.

[Alimantado]

Personally' date=' unless one is heading to my house... I don't care. [/quote']

If a comet was headed for your house, why would you care how old it was anyway? That would probably be the last thing on my mind!

Long time no read, Qwerty Guy. How comes you never post on the forum anymore?

[TheBibleSender]

It wasn't answered so here we go:

Kent Hovind's argument about comet's being 10,000 years old:

They are at the most, 10,000 years old, given the size, rate of decline, rate of new comets in relation to rate of comets destroyed in relation to comets still around, longest orbit of a comet, historical records of comets and how they appeared in relation to how they appear today...

Research it and you'll find it's not just a flippant comment he makes. Personally, unless one is heading to my house... I don't care.

Here is a good article on the topic http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp Gpd bless. :)

[Guest Guest]

I did call myself a nutcase, if that counts.

Alimantado...you are always good for a laugh. :lol:

[Guest Guest]

Here is a good article on the topic http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp Gpd bless.

hmm... that's an interesting read... Although, I'm still not so sure about the whole 10000 years thing.

[Salyan]

So.... while we're on this topic, what do y'all think about the Hovind Theory?

[Guest Guest]

What is the "Hovind Theory"?

[Alimantado]

It's the theory that all Kent Hovind's tax bills are less than 10,000 years old.

[deafnva77]

Kent should have hire illegals.. then he could get away with it scott free.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

I just wanted to add my 2, 3 or 4 cents to this conversation.

1. Evolution does address the formation of planets, stars and etc. It is called cosmic evolution.

2. One of Kent's son now does talks in churches all across the country. Although he does less speaking then his father did per year.

3. AIG, ICR and others have shown the short life spans of comets and since there is no solid evidence for a way to get more to replace them we can know that we live in a young galaxy.

[qwerty guy]

[quote="MrsW"]What is the "Hovind Theory"?[/quote]

I think the one you might be asking about, is the theory that the start of the flood was due to a comet hitting earth. Before the flood, we had a canopy of frozen water on the outer edge of the atmosphere, this comet caused it to fall thus the 40 days of rain. The impact of the comet also is what caused the earth to crack, causing the fountains of the deep to burst forth. Before the flood, most of the water on the earth today was underground, under a massive amount of pressure, the comet broke the shell.

Evidence of this is limited, but there is some. The main thing hovind uses is the wobble of the earth. He points out that if you spin a top and strike it with something, it wobbles less and less. Using the mathematical formulas for this "spinning object struck by object wobble" physics, Hovind showed that the wobble of the earth could of been caused by an object striking the earth about 4500 years ago, the time of the flood. He calculates the wobble of the earth with modern day measurements backed up by historical speculation on monuments and writings, such as the position of the pyramids, stone hedge, etc.

He also expounds that the canopy that was knocked down would of created moderate temps across the earth both day and night by dispersing the heat evenly, especially on a planet with no summer/winter. The canopy would of also created a higher atmosphere pressure with filtered light, much more acceptable to life, causing plants and animals including humans to live much longer and grow much bigger. There is also evidence of this in fossils, experimentation, and physics.

If that answers your question... awesome. If that's not the theory you asked about, please elaborate. If you'd like referances let me know.

[Guest Guest]

Oh...then, I have heard of him. Not his name...just this theory. :-)

[trc123]

You know I have to chuckle. Christians say they live by faith and have faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ and his supernatural resurrection. We point to miracles and the power of God and yet we are running around chasing our tales trying to "prove" to an unbelieving world that this or that has "scientific" evidence of what the Scriptures say.

The world's argument that the Genesis account of a six day creation can not be correct because the proof of the earth's age is in the millions and billions of years is one example. Why are we running around trying to find scientific evidence for something that those who live by faith need not. Don't people realize that the God and Creator of the Universe and the Earth, He who created it all is more than capable of doing so and giving the whole ball of wax the appearance of age? I mean, think about it. When God created Adam and on his first day of life he was only one day old; yet he had the appearance of a full grown man...........why is it so hard to believe God did the same with his other creations?

Listen folks, once you really believe that God is and He is GOD...........all the rest just falls into place by faith.

[Guest Guest]

:lol :lol That is why I said, "theory"...trc. It is just a "theory" and nothing more. :Green

[John81]

You know I have to chuckle. Christians say they live by faith and have faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ and his supernatural resurrection. We point to miracles and the power of God and yet we are running around chasing our tales trying to "prove" to an unbelieving world that this or that has "scientific" evidence of what the Scriptures say.

The world's argument that the Genesis account of a six day creation can not be correct because the proof of the earth's age is in the millions and billions of years is one example. Why are we running around trying to find scientific evidence for something that those who live faith need not. Don't people realize that the God and Creator of the Universe and the Earth who created it all is more than capable of doing so and giving the whole ball of wax the appearance of age? I mean, think about it. When God created Adam and on his first day of life he was only one day old; yet he had the appearance of a full grown man...........why is it so hard to believe God did the same with his other creation?

Listen folks, once you really believe that God is and He is GOD...........all the rest just falls into place by faith.

I find nothing wrong when someone discovers various facts that do support aspects of Creation and the biblical account but those who go overboard in trying to find natural, scientific explanations to fit into every aspect of Scripture often don't help the cause at all.

If there is clear evidence of something, great, put it forth. If not, don't try to force other things to fit and don't try to stretch things in order to make them sound more scientific or plausible.

The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth...that's good enough for me. By faith, I believe the Word of God.