• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does this guy actually BELIEVE the crap he's spouting???

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
a
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: ScottyB
One thing I have learned from this thread is Christians are way more gullible than I had previously thought.
Click to expand...

thats like me saying that muslims are way more violent than I previously thought..

nice way to generalize there buddy
Click to expand...

This religious Muslim can't stop laughing at the video 😉


It amazes me how people can be so devout to God, yet completely fall short when it comes to applying one of the greatest gifts he gave us: the ability to apply knowledge and build it...

ah well, michaelpatrick33 hit it head on
 
That was just one point of contention amongst many. It is not the dinasuar/dragon debate that the issue, it is his stretch from dragons to "dinosaurs lived with humans" that I take issue with.

I still would like you to answer the questions posed to you in my above post.

and BTW I am pretty familiar with Dinosaurs - and VERY familair with Biology in general.
Click to expand...
My point is that you're not familiar with dinosaurs, you're familiar with dinosaur bones or fossils.

Furthermore, humans have been making up stories and drawing pictures of mythical creatures for all human existance - where are all those creatures? Do you have any idea how many people claim to be abducted by aliens every year? So many that it must mean that there are aliens taking people daily, right?
Click to expand...
How do you know who is making up creatures and who actually saw them? I don't know. That doesn't mean I don't believe some of them. I'm a pretty strong believer in "there is an ounce of truth in every lie". I think there is a whole lot of stuff out there I can't understand or explain, including dragons/dinosaurs/aliens/sasquatch/etc.. But just because I don't understand it can't explain it doesn't mean I should label anyone who does as heretics. I'm happy that there are people out there who have dedicated their lives to learning more about it and try to make sense out of it and find out the truth.
 
Man, I'm glad I gave up and went to bed... 😀

1st off--this is getting WAAAAAYYYY too heated for a friendly debate. Everyone should take a deep breath and realize that this is a friendly debate and nothing more. With that in mind...

I listened to the full seminar last night, and much of his arguments seemed plausible. Am I 100% committed to his theories? No. Do I think it could be a possibility? Yes. Note, though, that I said I LISTENED. I really did not watch the video completely--I mainly had it playing in the background and if something caught my interest, I'd switch windows and watch, too. Therefore, I can't specifically commnt on the pictures of the chinese dragons, etc that he was showing.

On the other hand, I do believe that Plethosaurus (or whatever) could very well be alive today. I think the Loch Ness Monster and similar creatures exist in various bodies of water around the world. The sightings and descriptions are very common across the various accounts, so why couldn't it exist? Per Scott Gudes, acting administrator of NOAA: "More than 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by ocean, but to date, we've explored less than 5 percent of it." Up until the last 10-15 years (just guessing on the time frame), it was believed the Giant Squid was a myth. We now have proof that these things really do exist, though. So why couldn't the Loch Ness Monster, etc exist? without being able to study the creature closely, yet, we don't know it's migratory habits, feeding habits, etc. Perhaps it usually stays in the deep waters except for mating, certain tidal currents, etc. I don't have the answers--I'm simply admitting that the theory is plausible.

As for Giants, as mentioned in another post...I believe they existed. However, exactly how tall they were is open to debate. Are we talking 15-20 feet tall Giants? Larger? 8 foot Giants? No clue...but the Bible mentions Giants, so I believe that "Giants" existed. I suspect, however, that we are not talking about the "Giants" that one pictures in stories such as Jack and the Beanstalk.
 
Hm, I watched 10 minutes of it, and it didn't seem THAT bad...Of course, who knows what else he said after...not me. From what he said, I mostly agreed with him. The idea of evolution, or at least the one with the rock+soup, seemed pretty silly after what he said.

The rocks absorbed oxygen, yet there was no oxygen...

He made it seem stupid, though I bet there is a bit more to it than that...Still, I'd have to agree with the whole evolution = silly thing...just my opinion.

I visited Answers in Genesis and found their dinosaur article (Dinsaurs and the Bible, or something) to be pretty interesting, pretty believable. I understand the evolution theory, and I can't claim it's stupid. I just find the creationism theory to make a bit more sense, especially with the dinosaur article.

Anyways, I think some people overdo it. I'm tolerant of what people believe, keep myself open minded, and leave it that way.
 
Originally posted by: hans030390
Hm, I watched 10 minutes of it, and it didn't seem THAT bad...Of course, who knows what else he said after...not me. From what he said, I mostly agreed with him. The idea of evolution, or at least the one with the rock+soup, seemed pretty silly after what he said.
Click to expand...
There is an important disctintion to be made that so far has not been mentioned in this thread to my knowledege, and that is the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. We know evolution happens. The only "debate" about that fact occurs among the ignorant.

Abiogenesis is much different. Where evolution describes the way living things develop, abiogenesis must be a description of the way non-living things develop into living things. Evolution presupposes life. Without life, there can be no evolution, and evolution cannot describe anyhing BUT biological organisms. Abiogenesis, in contrast, must contend with so-called "inanimate" reality or "non-life".

My point is not to lead the debate off-topic, but rather to say that Kent Hovind notoriously conflates those two vastly different subjects, and he does it so persistently that laypeople don't even realize the trick he's pulled on them.

It is also important to note that nobody with an ounce of sense doubts the fact that abiogenesis happened. Once there was not life, and now there is life. Whatever happened in the past to change reality from the former state to the latter *IS* abiogenesis.

Naturally, scientists are trying to find out just what happened. Thats what they do, after all. Maybe what happened was something supernatural. Maybe it wasnt. Only time will tell, of course, but it's worth noting that history does not exhibit a winning record for religion when it has before butt heads with scientific discovery.
 
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: hans030390
Hm, I watched 10 minutes of it, and it didn't seem THAT bad...Of course, who knows what else he said after...not me. From what he said, I mostly agreed with him. The idea of evolution, or at least the one with the rock+soup, seemed pretty silly after what he said.
Click to expand...
There is an important disctintion to be made that so far has not been mentioned in this thread to my knowledege, and that is the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. We know evolution happens. The only "debate" about that fact occurs among the ignorant.

Abiogenesis is much different. Where evolution describes the way living things develop, abiogenesis must be a description of the way non-living things develop into living things. Evolution presupposes life. Without life, there can be no evolution, and evolution cannot describe anyhing BUT biological organisms. Abiogenesis, in contrast, must contend with so-called "inanimate" reality or "non-life".

My point is not to lead the debate off-topic, but rather to say that Kent Hovind notoriously conflates those two vastly different subjects, and he does it so persistently that laypeople don't even realize the trick he's pulled on them.

It is also important to note that nobody with an ounce of sense doubts the fact that abiogenesis happened. Once there was not life, and now there is life. Whatever happened in the past to change reality from the former state to the latter *IS* abiogenesis.

Naturally, scientists are trying to find out just what happened. Thats what they do, after all. Maybe what happened was something supernatural. Maybe it wasnt. Only time will tell, of course, but it's worth noting that history does not exhibit a winning record for religion when it has before butt heads with scientific discovery.
Click to expand...

Nice post!


I think one thing we can all agree on - Mr. Hovind was effin HILARIOUS on Da Ali G show......





 
The beauty of science that Hovind tends to disregard is that theories are developed after some sort of quantitative analysis on some system. Where is his measurable quantity in anything else besides the masses of ignoramuses he has accumulated. He has no sound evidence, just a wee bit of COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. Science as an entity, if you will, has no problem with what you believe as long as it fits data in something that can easily be re-examined or reproduced.
 
no guys.... seriously. the earth used to have a layer of ice above the atmosphere. didn't you learn that in school?

</retard>
 
Originally posted by: SophalotJack
After reading through this thread, I can say I am no longer surprised why a C- student is our president for two terms.
Click to expand...

that graduated from Yale and Harvard Business school, which faired better then the opposition that flunked out of Vanderbuilt.
 
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: SophalotJack
After reading through this thread, I can say I am no longer surprised why a C- student is our president for two terms.
Click to expand...

that graduated from Yale and Harvard Business school, which faired better then the opposition that flunked out of Vanderbuilt.
Click to expand...


yea i wonder what school SophalotJack graduated from.
 
Without looking at the link or thread, I'm going to say "Kent Hovnid."


Hey, whaddaya know, I'm right. Yes, he is insane. All of modern science is either false, or else all scientists are incompetent because they don't just find all their answers in the bible.

People like that make me wonder how much I really value my ethics, in the name of separating stupid people from their money. Just putting it that way, it does sound like a rather noble cause. Then I could find something to blabber about to thousands of people, and make them believe that they need to keep sending me money, or some bad people are going to do bad things. It's like an addictive verbal drug, and I'm the dealer, with my crowd of loyal junkies ready to pony up loads of money for another fix. Only, it's perfectly legal.
 
What's really ironic here is that he'd whup every single poster here on the subject of dinosaurs and when they lived in a live debate. Be critical of him all you want, but at the end, I'd have to believe him as he'd mop the floor with his opponent.
 
Originally posted by: Janet Reno
What's really ironic here is that he'd whup every single poster here on the subject of dinosaurs and when they lived in a live debate. Be critical of him all you want, but at the end, I'd have to believe him as he'd mop the floor with his opponent.
Click to expand...

When one arguer is bound by true scientific theory and logic, and the other is not, nor is the latter's audience, the latter will win every time.
 
Originally posted by: Janet Reno
What's really ironic here is that he'd whup every single poster here on the subject of dinosaurs and when they lived in a live debate. Be critical of him all you want, but at the end, I'd have to believe him as he'd mop the floor with his opponent.
Click to expand...

The man thinks dinosaurs lived within the last 4500 years, are you fvcking kidding me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top