41 April 29 2011 at 03:26:01
Name: Ronnie Malugin
Comments: I firmly belive in what you and your ministerys fight for and try to teach.I am very interested in learning more.I am very hungry for the LORD,and want everyone to know the truth,and the differance between Creation,and evolution.
42 April 03 2011 at 17:23:26
Comments: i just spent the morning reading Hovind's responses to the articles posted here - what a hilarious few hours reading about his "education" and "evidence" for dinos living with man. I thought this would be over with the tax evasion thing, but now Eric is out there perpetuating the ministry! Now I am outraged! I wish people would stop taking them seriously.
43 March 23 2011 at 04:04:39
Name: Bungo Tallylem
Comments: Registering a site in someone else's name in order to attack them is an essentially dishonest maneuver. A site with Hovind's name should be reserved for Hovind or his supporters. Boos and jeers to you.
[CM - I fully investigated the legal and ethical implications of using a variation on "kent hovind" as a domain name. I am comfortable with the decision because "kent hovind" is the subject of the website. Many years later, you are the only person to complain.]
44 March 21 2011 at 07:04:49
Comments: stop the madness before it's too late
45 March 07 2011 at 19:22:09
Comments: also erp derp derp john smith trebob then herpy derpy derrrrrrp creationists are not derp they ar herp so there you hav it herpty derp
46 February 15 2011 at 05:40:20
Name: Ramona L. Zulauf
47 February 14 2011 at 15:45:40
Comments: The problem with evolution is you herp when you derp to herp herp.
and furthermore derp to herp evolution derpity derp.
48 February 06 2011 at 16:52:56
Comments: Hello anon February 06 2011 at 07:51:47. Here's the rest of that quote for you.
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.
You stopped at the part where he says "Yes, I know this goes against our common sense,..." but then you leave out the rest. This is called quotemining and it is a common creationist tactic. What Darwin is actually saying is "Yes, I know this goes against our common sense, but here is why it is not a problem." Addressing possible objections as part of your research is something called intellectual honesty and it is a requirement of the scientific method, but is strangely absent in most creationist literature. A great example of this is in Walt Brown's hydroplate hypothesis. He neglects to mention that the release of all that water would have released enough energy and created enough friction to turn the entire planet into a molten ball of lava and turn the atmosphere into a raging fire storm a few times over rendering the chances of surviving on a giant boat slim to say the least. This is such a fatal unexplained flaw in the hypothesis that scientists can safely disregard the entire idea until a testable solution is proposed.
49 February 06 2011 at 07:51:47
Comments: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Charles Darwin. Hope this helps.
50 January 17 2011 at 12:09:10
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hello Mike,
Actually, this website is about Kent Hovind rather than Creationism per se. None of the regulars here are Creationists, and we do a lot of debunking of Creationism in the process of exposing Hovind's lunacies and lies. However, we refrain from insulting Creationists and accusing them of having beliefs (e.g. Flat Earth) that they in fact don't have.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>