Kent Hovind

Arikay · #**391** 21st March 2004, 04:23 PM

Um, actually it wouldn't take considerable research, if you go to the talk origins page that that picture is taken from, I believe they have references for where each skull was found and by who. So, unless you are calling them liars, these are not the same skulls you are thinking of. (which is why everyone has been telling you that you are wrong about them.)

Bushido216 · #**392** 21st March 2004, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by DaSpEcSter

It was a joke man....And please be polite and civilized and don't call my mother a liar.

Actually, I was questioning that she was your mother to begin with.

DaSpEcSter · #**393** 21st March 2004, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

Actually, I was questioning that she was your mother to begin with.

lol so you're point is?

Bushido216 · #**394** 21st March 2004, 10:26 PM

Missed point you did, yes yes?

ilwjc · #**395** 22nd March 2004, 12:47 AM

You see one skull, you see `em all.

Jet Black · #**396** 22nd March 2004, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by ilwjc

You see one skull, you see `em all.

so basically you can't back up your allegation then?

Skillz151 · #**397** 22nd March 2004, 05:55 AM

I don't see why or how you can claim that every thing Kent Hovind claims is false? I do agree with the fact that some of his points on creation are off, such as the "dust on the moon". Nevertheless it seems to me as if alot of individuals disprove of 'every' single claim that is made by the man, which in my opinion is childish.

Jet Black · #**398** 22nd March 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Skillz151

I don't see why or how you can claim that every thing Kent Hovind claims is false? I do agree with the fact that some of his points on creation are off, such as the "dust on the moon". Nevertheless it seems to me as if alot of individuals disprove of 'every' single claim that is made by the man, which in my opinion is childish.

The issue is not that, I would consider what he says to be untrustworthy, particularly anything he says about science, based on the fact that so many of his scientific statements are completely and utterly wrong. This demonstrates that he does not check up on his sources and find out the proper facts for himself. Anything he says that is correct would just end up being the equivalent of a broken clock telling the right time twice a day.

Skillz151 · #**399** 22nd March 2004, 06:05 AM

I've heard many of his debates and he seems to absolutely punish the opponent... I havn't seen or heard them all, but I do find them amusing. How come the evolutionist come back with half-hearted or in simpliar terms, sorry rebutals? If they knew "their science" I would think that their rebutals would crush Hovind if they pertained to be true.
And although I understand your analogy I think Hovind does have some strong points. Escpecially with the "lies" in the textbooks.

Data · #**400** 22nd March 2004, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Skillz151

I've heard many of his debates and he seems to absolutely punish the opponent... I havn't seen or heard them all, but I do find them amusing. How come the evolutionist come back with half-hearted or in simpliar terms, sorry rebutals? If they knew "their science" I would think that their rebutals would crush Hovind if they pertained to be true.

If it was a written debate, which is what you do in science, then Hovind would be crushed.

There's a reason he doesn't do written debates