(December 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I haven't been holding my breath for the case or any proof. I decided well.

Pilate nailed him to the cross. He's dead and will stay that way.

I say this as a believer.

So, you are the 4th Best Christian™?

(December 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Brucer Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I haven't been holding my breath for the case or any proof. I decided well.

Pilate nailed him to the cross. He's dead and will stay that way.

I say this as a believer.

(December 20, 2014 at 1:56 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Oh c'monnnn. Name me a part in the video where he said something that was factually wrong, REGARDING MACROEVOLUTION. You can't, can you?

So, for starters, you're dodging what I actually said, deflecting because you can't answer. Additionally, I don't need to present something Kent Hovind said that is factually wrong "regarding macroevolution," because macroevolution itself is a factually inaccurate, creationist manufactured distortion of evolution. Put simply, if any of Hovind's arguments were predicated on this idea of macroevolution, they are already factually incorrect.

That said, I skipped to a random part of the video and listened to the first thing he said, and it was factually incorrect: he showed a slide of a dog, a wolf, a coyote and a banana, and asked a member of the crowd which one is not like the others. When he got the expected answer that the banana is different, he claimed that "college professors can't tell" the difference between the four. It get a big laugh from the hicks in the audience, but this is, quite simply, entirely wrong; college professors have numerous means by which they can differentiate between the banana and the canids, not to mention an equally numerous set of means by which they can differentiate between each of the canids themselves (apparently, Kent can't see any difference between wolves, coyotes and domesticated dogs, as he seems to think they're exactly the same.He's wrong, but I guess nuance is alien to a simple mind like his.) Hovind then goes on to claim that all those dogs have a common ancestor, but that it was also a dog, but here he makes another factually incorrect claim, as we know from genetics that, in fact, the common ancestor of dogs was actually a wolf, of a probably extinct subspecies of gray wolf. So that's three.

Following from that is some crap about "kinds," that all animals produce the same kind, and therefore that's not evolution, and this too is factually incorrect, because the word "kind" appears nowhere in the definition of evolution, nor in any form of biological science, and so therefore the determination about what is and isn't evolution cannot reference kinds at all, any more than it can reference dry wall. Right after that, on the same slide, he adds that no new information can ever be added to the gene pool, and to that I present the Italian Wall Lizard, that evolved entirely new structures within its digestive tract when introduced to a remote island, distinct from the variety that occurs on the mainland, in just 36 years. New structures are expressed by new genes, and hence additional information in their genome that wasn't present initially, and now is due to naturally selective pressures in their new environment. Hovind is wrong yet again, and that's not the only example I can provide: look up frame-shift mutations, if you're interested, which I know you aren't.

From there, he goes on to say that the line of horse evolution initially proposed by Othniel C Marsh based on fossils he had found had been "proven wrong," but in actuality additional fossils had been later discovered which had diversified and added to the model as he had known it, not falsified it entirely as Hovind claims: I had to look that one up but it only took me five seconds on google. In support of this, he claims that modern horses have been discovered in fossil layers which should only hold ancient horses, and for this claim he offers an article from a publication called "Moscow Truth," as a resource. The only problem here is that he's lying: he's referencing an independent Russian newspaper, not a peer reviewed scientific source, and when one looks it up, one sees no reference at all to the discovery of modern horses in fossil layers. The article, in fact, discusses fossilized footprints of a type of odd toed animal called a perissodactyl, not horses. A possible ancestor of a horse, but not a literal modern horse, which Kent had to have known if he'd read the article, as they never once refer to it as a modern horse in the text. Perhaps he stopped at the headline- "A horse from the dinosaur epoch?"- and didn't bother to read any further?

I could go on, but I think I've made my point; you said I couldn't find a single incorrect claim Hovind made regarding evolution (macroevolution, if you want to get overly literal) and just by randomly skipping to a point in the video you presented, I found seven in a row. Now, I suspect you're tempted to dismiss what I'm saying as "bio-babble" because that's sort of what you do, but I'd remind you that this is what you asked from me: you challenged me to go through Hovind's claims and see if I could find some that were wrong. That requires that I run through what science has to say and present it if it differs from Hovind's claims, which it always does. You literally can't safely dismiss this; you asked me to do it.

(December 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Still can't quite grasp the concept, can you?

Nobody understand the Trinity. More honest Christian scholars will admit it's a puzzle that lies beyond human capabilities to understand.

Others will just parrot the line "one god in three separate persons" and pretend that this explains anything.

Quote:No one is saying that God and Jesus are "one being"....Jesus and the Father are two different beings, both of whom are the same GOD.

I'm belaboring this point just for fun:

"Two different beings" and "are the same being" is a contradiction.

Quote:Just apply the title of "God" to both the Father and Son (and the Holy Spirit), and there you have it.

So "God" is not a being but a title?

(December 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Brucer Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I haven't been holding my breath for the case or any proof. I decided well.

Pilate nailed him to the cross. He's dead and will stay that way.

I say this as a believer.

Sadly, the only guy alive and writing at the time, a jew himself, who actually did write a letter of complaint to an emperor in which he discussed Pilate's crimes doesn't know anything about that one.

Curious....although probably not to you.

(December 20, 2014 at 4:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Brucer Wrote: Pilate nailed him to the cross. He's dead and will stay that way.

I say this as a believer.

Sadly, the only guy alive and writing at the time, a jew himself, who actually did write a letter of complaint to an emperor in which he discussed Pilate's crimes doesn't know anything about that one.

Curious....although probably not to you.

You would be speaking of Philo of Alexandria. He was in no position to know anything about Jesus, since he was in Egypt at the time.

(December 20, 2014 at 4:44 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Nobody understand the Trinity. More honest Christian scholars will admit it's a puzzle that lies beyond human capabilities to understand.

I think the current version exists because any explanations that allowed for a critical examination didn't hold up very well. So the version that cannot be understood works best. Which is a searing indictment of the whole mess.

I think that the "god as a title" thing can work if we treat it thusly: there can be many senators, but they are part of only one senate. Thus there are many, and there is one. I don't think that will be acceptable simply because it creates a structure that can be understood and therefore scrutinized. So I figure we'll continue to hear about the version that is beyond our understanding.

(December 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm)Brucer Wrote: You would be speaking of Philo of Alexandria. He was in no position to know anything about Jesus, since he was in Egypt at the time.

Fact is, even if Jesus existed, he was a nobody to his contemporaries. If he had been in any way important as a trouble maker, we would know about it. There would be more than just a few accounts of dubious nature.

(December 20, 2014 at 5:10 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm)Brucer Wrote: You would be speaking of Philo of Alexandria. He was in no position to know anything about Jesus, since he was in Egypt at the time.

Fact is, even if Jesus existed, he was a nobody to his contemporaries. If he had been in any way important as a trouble maker, we would know about it. There would be more than just a few accounts of dubious nature.

He was "bigged up" by the Christians at the time. They turned a mere man- although a remarkable sage- into a god.

That's like a crime in my books.