do you really want that stuff?
Material
13 Comments - 1255 Views
Timeline etc.
Submitted By Steven on 09/03/01
FreeHovind, Steven, Discussions
Hey
Is it possible to get the evolution vs Creation timeline and generations timelines which are displayed in Hovinds videos?
If The material he uses in hes courses are avalable, I would allso be thankfull, if these could be sent to my mail stevenz@jubii.dk
» Reply to Commentdo you really want that stuff?
thebiblewascompiledin325AD
5 days - 8,032v
Posted 2009/03/01 - 21:27 GMT
» Reply to Commentsure do.
I sure do.
» Reply to CommentI actually bought one off of his web-site under 's
I actually bought one off of his web-site under 'shopping.' His debate DVDs are only $9.99. I've bought a few of them. You can listen to all of them online at: http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html#debates
» Reply to Commentok, but why do you want it. please don't tell
ok, but why do you want it. please don't tell me it is to teach science, otherwise i got some people who might want to explain Kent Hovind's "theories" a little more.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo
http://www.youtube.com/user/thunderf00t?blend=1&ob=0
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
and
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
you might want to look into those vids if you are thinking about teaching this as science.
however if you want to teach it under socioligy, religion or philosophy.
no problems.
» Reply to CommentMy video:)
Don't forget this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPzbGdJMbXc
» Reply to Commentthat's a nice one but that doesn't really deb
that's a nice one but that doesn't really debunk the crap hovind calls "evidence".
» Reply to Comment
Here's a few. http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com
Here's a few. http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/csehovind.html#debates
» Reply to Commentok so the guy did some debates. i watched 3 2
ok so the guy did some debates. i watched 3 2 hour debates on youtube. and i have to tell you, even though that aren't nearly all the debates he did, he didn't make much sense.
in a scientific debate he actually starts mentioning god. now that is NOT scientific.
he feutes the points that it HAS to be the judeo christian god, or otherwise he skirts the question. he constantly makes analogies which don't make sense. like comparing an manmade inanimate thing (car or brigde) to an organism. THAT IS UNCOMPAIRABLE! FOR LIKE THE 100TH TIME!
not all the evolutionist are as articulate as he or claim as much knowledge in the field he apperantly is an "expert in". and they rightfully do so. you cannot expect a person who studies evolution in bird answer a question when it comes to some misenterpretation of the big bang theory.
and the fact that they aren't as articulate (or in hovind's case able to talk shit really fast) DOESN'T mean that their arguemtns aren't valid. in fact in most of the debates i am shocked at how little the spectators actually know about the theories that are being discussed (and misrepresented) by hovind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJemSnooDc4&feature=related
just look at that, Moor has to spend 15 minutes to explain the scientific method, he doesn't even get to start on hovind's claims, he has to EXPLAIN what hovind is misrepresenting.
there are MASSIVE amounts of vids that debunk most of hovind's material out of hand, which is amazing if it where an actual scientific theory. but do as any rational person does, look at both sides, and not just hovinds.
» Reply to CommentOriginal Poster
I'm not a teacher. I'm just trying to look at things from all perspectives here.
I don’t agree with all the reasoning’s Kent Hovind uses, since some seem to contradict them selves, but in general he has many good points that speak for Creationists point of view.
All I asked for was the pictures of Timeline/Diagrams he uses in his videos "not the videos them selves".
If these are not copyright protected or something, plz share stevenz@jubii.dk
I don’t agree with all the reasoning’s Kent Hovind uses, since some seem to contradict them selves, but in general he has many good points that speak for Creationists point of view.
All I asked for was the pictures of Timeline/Diagrams he uses in his videos "not the videos them selves".
If these are not copyright protected or something, plz share stevenz@jubii.dk
» Reply to Commentexactly which "points" does Hovind make?
you do u
exactly which "points" does Hovind make?
you do understand that he butchers the scientific concept most of the time, regularely quotes the bible and makes claims which he immedietly denies like.
"i have a theory about a water canopy. now i can't prove that, but the bible says...""
now that is the general example of what hovidn does when he states his theory.
another tactic he likes to use is to give fringe, misenterpreted or false evidence that science is or can be wrong.
-ica stone, those were debunked.
-water canopy theory, scientifically impossible.
-archeoptrix fossil in china, debunked by science, eventhough i only completely fool JUST 2 paleantologists. hovind claims that the fact that an article was published in Nat Geo that all of science was fooled.
Nat geo is a science, history and nature magazine. it is in no way part of the scientific literature, or the scientific journals.
- Hovind claism that an ice astoroid hitting the earth will cause a cooling affect...now that has to be the most stupidest thing you ever head.
- Hovind false states that there are no transitional fossils...srly, there are tons of them, they just don't fit his desription of "transition fossil.
- Hovind doesn't understand basic genetics, the theory of evolution, or even more advance physics.
now i could go on, but i got a class now so i gotto run...
please check out the links to the youtube users, the y explain alot better than me why Hovind makes no case at all.
you do understand that he butchers the scientific concept most of the time, regularely quotes the bible and makes claims which he immedietly denies like.
"i have a theory about a water canopy. now i can't prove that, but the bible says...""
now that is the general example of what hovidn does when he states his theory.
another tactic he likes to use is to give fringe, misenterpreted or false evidence that science is or can be wrong.
-ica stone, those were debunked.
-water canopy theory, scientifically impossible.
-archeoptrix fossil in china, debunked by science, eventhough i only completely fool JUST 2 paleantologists. hovind claims that the fact that an article was published in Nat Geo that all of science was fooled.
Nat geo is a science, history and nature magazine. it is in no way part of the scientific literature, or the scientific journals.
- Hovind claism that an ice astoroid hitting the earth will cause a cooling affect...now that has to be the most stupidest thing you ever head.
- Hovind false states that there are no transitional fossils...srly, there are tons of them, they just don't fit his desription of "transition fossil.
- Hovind doesn't understand basic genetics, the theory of evolution, or even more advance physics.
now i could go on, but i got a class now so i gotto run...
please check out the links to the youtube users, the y explain alot better than me why Hovind makes no case at all.
» Reply to Commentstop...
I am not going to discuss anything in this thread.
If you have the material I am asking for, please let me know.
If you have the material I am asking for, please let me know.
» Reply to Comment
I found the timeline chart for you. Go here: htt
I found the timeline chart for you. Go here: http://shopping.drdino.com/category-exec/category_id/114/nm/Charts_Posters
» Reply to CommentThumbs up!
Thank you very much.
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
