Hovind's lies exposed.

[AV1611VET]

I don't know about you, but I grasped the concept of making a mistake vs. lying at about age 5.

I guarantee you, it is neither a mistake, nor a lie.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I guarantee you, it is neither a mistake, nor a lie.

Then why do you ask at all? "Hey guys, if I tell the truth, am I lying?"

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Can we all agree that Hovind is a liar and close this thread?

 

[gaara4158]

Then Hovind aside, I'll say it:

1. Native Americans used to hunt the Thunderbird.
2. The Thunderbird is an avian dinosaur.
3. Native Americans used to hunt dinosaurs.

Hovind aside? This is the Hovind thread, there is no pushing Hovind aside. Your irksome inductions are neither here nor there. Stop derailing threads!

 

[AV1611VET]

Can we all agree that Hovind is a liar and close this thread?

You guys are doing a poor job proving it.

(But then, even I'm called a liar here --- so I guess the term has been diluted.)

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You guys are doing a poor job proving it.

Hovind claim: Native Americans hunted dinosaurs (not birds).

Fact: Absolutely ZERO proof Native Americans hunted dinosaurs (not birds).

Proved Hovind lied.

Need another?

 

[Cabal]

You guys are doing a poor job proving it.

Quibbling over semantics isn't proving it wrong either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hovind claim: Native Americans hunted dinosaurs (not birds).

Fact: Absolutely ZERO proof Native Americans hunted dinosaurs (not birds).

Proved Hovind lied.

Need another?

Absolute ZERO proof ≠ Proof of a Lie

 

[AV1611VET]

Quibbling over semantics isn't proving it wrong either.

All someone has to do is believe it themselves, and they are immune from lying.

To call someone a 'liar' is to say that that person KNOWS what he is saying is false and says it anyway.

Therefore, to call someone a 'liar' is making the statement that you know he knows he is making a false statement and saying it anyway.

If you're claiming Hovind is a 'liar', then you must have spent some time with him yourself.

 

[Cabal]

All someone has to do is believe it themselves, and they are immune from lying.

To call someone a 'liar' is to say that that person KNOWS what he is saying is false and says it anyway.

Therefore, to call someone a 'liar' is making the statement that you know he knows he is making a false statement and saying it anyway.

I totally agree. My remark was in response to your bird/dinosaur tangent.

 

[Bombila]

Then Hovind aside, I'll say it:

1. Native Americans used to hunt the Thunderbird.
2. The Thunderbird is an avian dinosaur.
3. Native Americans used to hunt dinosaurs.

Out of curiousity, AV, what Native American tribes (or First Nations People, Canadian equivalent) hunted Thunderbirds or non-avian dinosaurs? What do they say about this?


Just so I know if this is from the lips of the people we're referencing or from the lips of some interpreting White Guy.

 

[Hespera]

All someone has to do is believe it themselves, and they are immune from lying.

To call someone a 'liar' is to say that that person KNOWS what he is saying is false and says it anyway.

Therefore, to call someone a 'liar' is making the statement that you know he knows he is making a false statement and saying it anyway.

If you're claiming Hovind is a 'liar', then you must have spent some time with him yourself.

And no doubt you'd support and defend this guy just the same way if he were to be using the same tactics to attack the bible?

 

[Cabal]

Out of curiousity, AV, what Native American tribes (or First Nations People, Canadian equivalent) hunted Thunderbirds or non-avian dinosaurs? What do they say about this?


Just so I know if this is from the lips of the people we're referencing or from the lips of some interpreting White Guy.

Indeed, don't want a repeat of the "Japanese worshipped their swords" incident.

 

[AV1611VET]

And no doubt you'd support and defend this guy just the same way if he were to be using the same tactics to attack the bible?

I would support and defend you, Hespera, if you said 'Buddha loves you', and someone called you a 'liar'.

 

[Hespera]

I would support and defend you, Hespera, if you said 'Buddha loves you', and someone called you a 'liar'.

Is there a reason for not just answering the question ?

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Then Hovind aside, I'll say it:

1. Native Americans used to hunt the Thunderbird.
2. The Thunderbird is an avian dinosaur.
3. Native Americans used to hunt dinosaurs.

​

Out of curiousity, AV, what Native American tribes (or First Nations People, Canadian equivalent) hunted Thunderbirds or non-avian dinosaurs? What do they say about this?


Just so I know if this is from the lips of the people we're referencing or from the lips of some interpreting White Guy.

Nobody ever hunted thunderbirds. They are mythical.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

All someone has to do is believe it themselves, and they are immune from lying.

To call someone a 'liar' is to say that that person KNOWS what he is saying is false and says it anyway.

Therefore, to call someone a 'liar' is making the statement that you know he knows he is making a false statement and saying it anyway.

If you're claiming Hovind is a 'liar', then you must have spent some time with him yourself.

Ridiculous. Even for you AV.

At the least Hovind is ignorant (dumb on purpose), at most out right deceitful. Given his modus operandi, which is more likely?

 

[AV1611VET]

Out of curiousity, AV, what Native American tribes (or First Nations People, Canadian equivalent) hunted Thunderbirds or non-avian dinosaurs? What do they say about this?


Just so I know if this is from the lips of the people we're referencing or from the lips of some interpreting White Guy.

I believe it was the Lakota --- and that's a good point --- they may not have hunted them, per se.

However, if Kent Hovind says they hunted them, I'll take his word on it --- for now.

Here's an interesting article:

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Cryptozoologists like Mark A. Hall, having studied the Thunderbird myths of numerous tribes, and compared them to (mostly folkloric) accounts of unusually large birds in modern times, as well as large birds (like the Roc) in other mythic traditions, suggest that there may well be a surviving species of large avians in America - big enough, apparently, to fly off carrying small animals or children, as has been claimed in some accounts. (Hall suggests the wingspan of such a species would be several feet longer than any known birds - certainly bigger than that of the turkey vulture or other identifiable North American species.) (Hall 1988) Such researchers feel the Thunderbird myth may have originated from sightings of a real-life flesh-and-blood avian which might be an atavism from earlier epochs as the fifty-foot wingspan pterodactyl, Quetzalcoatlus or the giant feathered flying bird called the Teratorn.[/FONT]

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody ever hunted thunderbirds. They are mythical.

Says who?

And yes, I'm familiar with what you guys think (and are probably taught) is 'mythical'.

When you guys claim something is 'mythical', I get all sorts of "red flags" now.

In short, I don't trust you guys' judgment.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Cryptozoologists.. That in itself rasies a red flag for me. I have saw numerous shows where these folks are hunting for Bigfoot, Nessie and other such creatures. It is usually pretty clear that they want to believe them to be true resulting in tainted opinions, much like UFO searchers.

Maybe some sort of very large bird did co-exist with humans for a time, maybe even one of the ones they mention, yet I find it quite likely that the reports are exagerated at best and people that want to believe try thier best to link them to a real creature even if no such creature exists.

Do you also believe that Knights hunted fire breathing dragons?