• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolution and Atheism have both been Proven to be False Religions

mtwilcox

New member
If the theory of evolution were truth, shouldn't all findings in the fossil record be proofs for evolution?

Why would evolutionists go as far as to falsify findings to try to prove their theory?

The theoretical process of evolution, teaches that Every living thing is in a constant state of change, and adaption; gaining new functional anatomy and losing anatomy over time: Ultimately leading to New Kinds of animals.

However, the fossil record does not show this to be true; in fact, the fossil record Proves this is false, and the theory of evolution could not possibly be a Sufficient Explanation of the Evidence within the fossil record: Given the fossil record shows all the modern animals unchanged going back tens and some cases hundreds of millions of years, anatomically unchanged, and that the animals which are around today in the modern world, look exactly the way they have the entire time they’ve existed on this planet.



Magic evolution theory = animals gain new functional anatomy via mutation of their genome, naturally through reproduction over time.

Reality = animals can only gain or lose functional anatomy that they already possess within their genome, naturally through reproduction over time.



Mutation and adaption are both observable; an animal like a cat or dog or a bear may change color, size, and thickness of skin over time; but, they will always remain cats dogs and bears... that's called observable truth,
Observable truth is not theory, it's called science people! : )

Given speciation has never been observed occurring in nature, or in the fossil record, and all the fossils of animals in the fossil record contain the Same Anatomy their Modern Versions do Today; the theoretical process of evolution, is obviously not the means by which all the Various Species of animals came to exist in the Modern World.

Some animals have gotten smaller or bigger over time, but they remain the same animals... a good example of this is the giant dragon flies found in the fossil record.

That is why evolution is an obvious lie, and not based on the Observable Evidence, and why it remains a theory; and, not a scientific theory by any means, given science is Observable truth.

Evolution and Atheism are both religions, they can only be Believed in and never have been proven, because of the non-existence of evidence for them. Given the Evidence we have (fossil record) Speaks against Atheism, and Evolution; it becomes obvious they are both false Doctrines that should be tossed out, and not believed by any thinking individual whatsoever, who prefers to keep his Thoughts and Beliefs based in reality.

=M=

==============================



When it comes to mutations, anatomy is gained all the time, but it always seems to be something which is already included in a genome.

Examples:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ani...hXCpFkKHX2MB1AQ_AUoAXoECBEQAQ&biw=320&bih=446

Did you know that snakes have the information for legs in their genome? But, they lost their legs sometime over time...

The Bible says God cursed the snake and took its legs away... so, the genome was changed to shut off the formation of their legs...
Interestingly; though it's a rare mutation, the leg formation gene within the snake’s genome is turned back on:

http://craftynewscritter.com/outlandish-animals-existed/

It's interesting the Bible says snakes used to have legs, and a rare mutation as we've seen today reactivates legs in snakes, right?

Which means their genome does indeed have information for legs, but it is inactive...

If evolution were true, what would be the possible advantage snakes would lose their legs...?

Silly snakes! Stop having such negative mutations; and proving evolution theory wrong all on your own!!! (Said Arthur Brain)

There are three forces that we currently know about which can cause mutation within the genome of a creature; reproduction caused mutation, chemical caused mutation (teenage mutant ninja turtles), and radiation caused mutation of a genome. Generally, when we mutate things in a lab environment we use chemicals on a baby creature to cause all sorts of mutation; radiation, however is the future of controlled mutation. With controlled mutation we can direct the changing of a genome. Once we are good enough at it, we will be able to use computers that direct mutations via radiation, to change already existing genomes to give a goat, say, three horns instead of two... or, we could even make a unicorn goat!!! That would be sweet!
We will be able to add or take away already existing functional anatomy that exists within the genome.

Eventually, we will be good enough at genetic manipulation to take a portion of a genome from one animal, and place that information into another animal, to give it new functional anatomy. This new anatomy would only be functional anatomy that already exists in nature; we will have to come quite a bit further than that before we actually start to construct new never before seen functional anatomy, however.
I mean, it’s pretty hard to think of some form of appendage, or some anatomical functional mechanism (eyes, ears, gills) God has not already displayed in nature.

The problem with mutation is that eventually animals, or species of animals more, begin to have problems reproducing: for example the Panda Bear.
Humans themselves are also beginning to have reproductive issues, and will eventually no longer be able to procreate; leading us to rely fully on artificial insemination, which will eventually also fail to function: all thanks to mutation through reproduction over Time...

Yet, this same force of mutation that renders species infertile over time is the very same biological force or vehicle evolutionists want everyone to believe is the process by which all the various species of life came to exist on planet Earth??? What!?!
 
Last edited:

mtwilcox

New member
Honestly, I'd suggest reading up on the actual theory as it hasn't been "disproved" and you have real misconceptions regarding it.

I understand the theory fine; that’s how I know it’s not based on reality.

Maybe this time you will address a couple of my questions.

===========================

In my mind, there are only two options;
Either evolution is true, or creation is true.

If creation is true we should expect to find species of animals were originally created in full form, we would expect to see them in the fossil record as they now appear in the modern world; only displaying minor losses of anatomy, and possibly changes in size, color, tooth length and so on. If creation is true, we should expect to see the modern species of animals in the fossil record, and we do.

If evolution is true we should expect to see proof animals have been changing from single-celled micro-organisms into multi-celled macro-organisms over time, and not expect to find modern animals in fossil form whatsoever; especially not ones that supposedly date back to the first animals on this planet.

However, that is exactly what we find.

I asked you to provide evidence that New species have arisen out of other species, and you have not.

I gave you evidence that fossils of species of animals have been found which still are observable in nature today; which is evidence of God creating them originally in the forms we now see them today.

This same evidence disproves the theory of evolution.
Darwin suggested that animals are constantly in a state of change; if there are fossils of animals that are still living modernly, that is evidence against evolution.

How do you explain the fact there are fossilized animals which people who entertain the theory of evolution believe are tens and hundreds of millions of years old; are still living modernly?

I mean, if evolution is constantly changing species into new ones, how are there fossils of animals remainining anatomically unchanged today?

=M=

==========================


People who believe in fossil dating have fossils of this fish which they believe are over 400 million years old!!!

If this fish has remained anatomically unchanged for that long; how can you believe man came out of a chimp like being in 3.5 million years?!?

Also, if this fish has not changed in 400 million years, when wasn’t it a ceolocanth?

In your opinion, does Evolution happen Fast, or Slow?
Judging by this creature, I’d say it does not happen at all...

There are many more examples that show Evolution does not occur.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/14-fun-facts-about-dragonflies-96882693/

From Wikipedia:

“Meganeura is a genus of extinct insects from the Carboniferous period (approximately 300 million years ago), which resembled and are related to the present-day dragonflies.”

Meganeura_monyi_au_Museum_de_Toulouse.jpg


This fossil is obviously a dragonfly, and it contains all the same functional anatomy that modern dragonflies contain today!!!

This fossil disproves the theory of evolution.

If dragonflies looked exactly the same 300 million years ago; when weren’t they dragonflies?
I mean, if they remained anatomically unchanged for 300 million years, evolution does not happen. This is the only logical explanation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura

There are also:

Jellyfish

https://www.livescience.com/1971-oldest-jellyfish-fossils.html

Starfish

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42776719

Bats

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

So, explain to me Arthur: why do you believe in Evolution?

I mean, it seems like these animals have remained the same species the entire time they’ve existed on earth...
The fossil evidence supports creation, not evolution.

If you are Arthur Brain, or any other Evolutionist that visits this site; and have managed to read this far: my questions that I would like you to answer are in Royal Blue so they are easy for you to find... Thank you for your time, and I hope you reply.
 
Last edited:

mtwilcox

New member
Genetic Mutation will not lead to New Anatomy, nor the gaining of new functional anatomy (ears, eyes, wings); which was not contained in the Original Genome of the Genetically Mutated Animal’s parents.

=M=

=========================

 
Last edited:

mtwilcox

New member
Atheism is obviously a false religion, given the fine tuned universe in which we exist, could only have come about through the direction of an all powerful creative intelligent God.

=M=

=============================


Evolutionists use their Magical word "Time", in order to explain away anything they have no logical explanation for...

They say: "hey! If there's water on a planet, life will occur there... in TIME”...
They say: “single celled micro-organisms can change into human beings, given enough TIME”...
They say: “Dust, Gas, and Gravity can result in functioning stars and planets, if you allow enough TIME”...

Abracadabra = Time


I disagree; and, So did Isaac Newton:

“But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions: since the Comets range over all parts of the heavens, in very eccentric orbits. For by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the Planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detain'd the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these being form'd by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially, since the light of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems. And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those Systems at immense distances one from another.” - Sir Isaac Newton (the father of modern science)

From : http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00056
 
Last edited:

mtwilcox

New member
Atheism is also disproven by the fact life exists in this fine tuned universe in the first place.

=M=

============================

 

Alate_One

Well-known member
If this fish has remained anatomically unchanged for that long; how can you believe man came out of a chimp like being in 3.5 million years?!?
Because evolution works based on the environment. Coelocanth has changed since it's ancient ancestors, but not much. If a design is very effective, it doesn't need to change.

As far as 3.5 million years. Humans did this is only 10,000 so . . . not seeing your point.

437af44dede270e3dc770ec767826bf1.jpg


If dragonflies looked exactly the same 300 million years ago; when weren’t they dragonflies?
Huh? They were dragonflies then, they're dragonflies now. They evolved from simpler arthropods but dragonflies are a very ancient lineage and have been around a long time.
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
A theory is a group of linked ideas intended to explain something. A theory provides a framework for explaining observations. The explanations are based on assumptions. From the assumptions follows a number of possible hypotheses. They can be tested to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
 

mtwilcox

New member
Because evolution works based on the environment. Coelocanth has changed since it's ancient ancestors, but not much. If a design is very effective, it doesn't need to change.

As far as 3.5 million years. Humans did this is only 10,000 so . . . not seeing your point.

4437af44dede270e3dc770ec767826bf1.jpg


Huh? They were dragonflies then, they're dragonflies now. They evolved from simpler arthropods but dragonflies are a very ancient lineage and have been around a long time.

First off, I would like to start My rebuttal by stating I do not believe that the dragonfly, nor the coelacanth fossil are hundreds of Millions of years old.

Secondly, I would like to restate that the fact we find fully developed species of Modern living animals in fossil form, proves they have remained the very same species they have been since first appearing on this planet in that form; this is something we both agree on: the fact they have remained the same species containing all the same functional anatomy from the time they were fossilized, till Modern day.

We agree on this I assume, correct?

Dragonflies are very old: in fact, I would say they’ve always been dragonflies; the Bible suggests they are as old as any other living creature, at least within the same week, that is. You claim they descended out of simpler insects: where is your proof of this?

If creation is the way Dragonflies first appeared as the Bible suggests, we would find fossils of dragonflies, and there would be no proof that dragonflies descended out of simpler insects; I think you will be at a loss for finding any fossil evidence to the contrary: of course, that’s because I believe in creation, and if what I believe is truth, there would be no proof dragonflies descended from simpler insects.

The fact they appear in fossil form, containing all the same functional anatomy is in favor of Creation theory; I Mean, if God initially created all the life on this planet in a fully developed form, we would expect to see fossils of creatures that appear to be the same species we share this modern world with correct?

You say the fact they remain in the same form for hundreds of Millions of years is because of their environment remaining the same, and they have “no need” to change or “evolve further” “gain new functional anatomy”, because they have reached a form that no longer has a necessity to change.

Do you believe that there is any environment on earth that hasn’t changed in over 300 Million years in which the Dragonfly, or Jellyfish, or Coelacanth have existed in?


Now, since you believe these fossils are hundreds of Millions of years old, do you also believe that evolution occurs quickly, or slowly?


As for the dogs, they have changed size: however, they both are still fully capable of being interbred to create viable offspring, and have the same functional anatomy. They have remained the same species; which is part of My Main point as I Mentioned above in My original post.

For evolution to be the cause or origin of the various species we see in fossils and in the Modern world, a species has to become another species; this Macro-speciation if you will, has never been observed, and it is impossible for it to occur given the fact Procreation of any given species can only produce offspring which is the same species of the parent. Which is why the Coelacanth, Dragonfly, and Jellyfish have remained the same species the entire time they have existed on this planet.

The fact that reproduction only results in the same species of offspring which the original parents were, proves that living creatures cannot become different species; this inability to produce different species through reproduction, shows the theory of evolution is obviously false.

It is a biological law of nature, that a species can only give birth to the same species; correct?


You claim above the Coelacanth has changed; how so?
Has it gained any New Functional Anatomy that the fossil form does not contain?

Also, if you could attempt to answer My blue questions in the Orginal Posts, i would really appreciate you...


=M=


==============================

Musick!!!

 
Last edited:

Alate_One

Well-known member
Secondly, I would like to restate that the fact we find fully developed species of Modern living animals in fossil form, proves they have remained the very same species they have been since first appearing on this planet in that form; this is something we both agree on: the fact they have remained the same species containing all the same functional anatomy from the time they were fossilized, till Modern day.
Dragonflies are an entire order. Saying they're all the same is like saying all of the members of the mammalian order Carnivora are the same species.

I think you're lacking in some knowledge of biological terminology.

How do you define the word "species"?


As for the dogs, they have changed size: however, they both are still fully capable of being interbred to create viable offspring, and have the same functional anatomy. They have remained the same species; which is part of My Main point as I Mentioned above in My original post.
Because they haven't been separated for very long. Reproductive barriers take time to appear.

For evolution to be the cause or origin of the various species we see in fossils and in the Modern world, a species has to become another species; this Macro-speciation if you will, has never been observed
Not directly by a single human because it takes far longer than a human lifetime to occur. You may as well say that a Redwood tree can't grow from a redwood seed, because no person has ever seen one grow from seedling to mature.

and it is impossible for it to occur given the fact Procreation of any given species can only produce offspring which is the same species of the parent.
That's true, but species aren't static, they change over time.

Which is why the Coelacanth, Dragonfly, and Jellyfish have remained the same species the entire time they have existed on this planet.
And you have these examples in a list because they are the FEW creatures that do stay mostly the same. Most of them do not stay the same.
 

7djengo7

New member
species aren't static, they change over time.

they are the FEW creatures that do stay mostly the same. Most of them do not stay the same.

In the one place, you say that species change. By that, do you mean that species evolve?
In the other place, you say that creatures "do not stay the same". By that, do you mean that creatures evolve?

Here's what one of my other "science" professors taught me:

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with changes in individual animals or plants. It deals with populations.

So, above, by your word, "creatures", do you not mean individual animals? You're not seriously going to tell me that, by "creatures", you did not mean individual animals, and that you, rather, meant populations, are you??

By "Most [creatures] do not stay the same," do you not mean "Most individual animals evolve"?

Do creatures--individual animals--evolve?

Darwin cheerleaders awkwardly, abysmally, perpetually failing to get the English language to work for their purposes of trying to make nonsense harmonize with nonsense is always an enjoyable spectacle to behold. But, I don't like to just sit and behold from beyond the sidelines: I'm here to actively facilitate their delivery of the goods.
 

chair

Well-known member
In the one place, you say that species change. By that, do you mean that species evolve?
In the other place, you say that creatures "do not stay the same". By that, do you mean that creatures evolve?

Here's what one of my other "science" professors taught me:



So, above, by your word, "creatures", do you not mean individual animals? You're not seriously going to tell me that, by "creatures", you did not mean individual animals, and that you, rather, meant populations, are you??

By "Most [creatures] do not stay the same," do you not mean "Most individual animals evolve"?

Do creatures--individual animals--evolve?

Darwin cheerleaders awkwardly, abysmally, perpetually failing to get the English language to work for their purposes of trying to make nonsense harmonize with nonsense is always an enjoyable spectacle to behold. But, I don't like to just sit and behold from beyond the sidelines: I'm here to actively facilitate their delivery of the goods.

I didn't use the word "creatures" at leat where you quoted me.
I think I've been very clear about individuals and populations, despite your attempts to twist my words.

The theory of evolution deals with changes in populations over time, i.e. over generations. The population is of course made up of individuals, but each individual doesn't evolve. The process occurs over generations- each generation is slightly different from the previous one.

The basic idea is quite simple. You continue with your absurd word games. I guess it makes you feel good to waste people's time.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
So, above, by your word, "creatures", do you not mean individual animals? You're not seriously going to tell me that, by "creatures", you did not mean individual animals, and that you, rather, meant populations, are you??
Yes I did mean a species. I don't mean an individual animal when discussing biological evolution, that only happens in video games.

Do creatures--individual animals--evolve?
Not in the sense of biological evolution no.
The word "creatures" in the sense of a species is used in scripture all the time. It's even used in one of the better evolution videos out there. So please stop being intentionally moronic.

 

mtwilcox

New member
Dragonflies are an entire order. Saying they're all the same is like saying all of the members of the mammalian order Carnivora are the same species.

I disagree. They are a genus called “anax”. They can all be interbred, so they are all the same species.
Just like bees can all be interbred, and so on.

I think you're lacking in some knowledge of biological terminology.

How do you define the word "species"?

I gave My definition for the term “species” in My original Posts:
The largest group of animals capable of producing offspring.


Because they haven't been separated for very long. Reproductive barriers take time to appear.

How long have the Black Bear, and the Polar Bear been separated? They can still interbreed; I think your understanding of biology and reproduction is lacking.

How long exactly do you assume they have to be separated until they lose the ability to interbreed?

Speciation has not directly been seen by a single human because it takes far longer than a human lifetime to occur. You may as well say that a Redwood tree can't grow from a redwood seed, because no person has ever seen one grow from seedling to mature.

I didn’t Mean “seen by any human”, silly; although it has not; I mean, there is no evidence for speciation whatsoever: as in, the vast fossil record contains no proof speciation has ever occurred... did you watch the last video I posted about “Missing Links”?

Or, did you ignore that video, like you have apparently disregarded my questions in the original posts?

You jumped in all Willy Nilly trying to debate logical statements, without addressing any of my critical thought questions...

That's true, but species aren't static, they change over time.

How do you define the term Species?

Not Static eh?
Like I asked you before; Do you think evolution happens fast or slow? It appears your plastic theory of evolution also allows you to believe macro-speciation does not happen whatsoever, for hundreds of Millions of years; given you accept the idea of species remaining anatomically unchanged for tens, and in some cases hundreds of millions of years...

And you have these examples in a list because they are the FEW creatures that do stay mostly the same. Most of them do not stay the same.

There are plenty more examples of fossils of modern species of animals. You are choosing to remain ignorant of them, probably because they don’t fit your beliefs.

Do a little research, you will see what I’m talking about.

What would you say if I told you there have been Birds found in full form as fossils, that supposedly date back over 100 Million years?

Mosquitoes, Bees, Mice, trees of all kinds, crabs, starfish: the list goes on and on.

=M=

=============================

And now, for today’s extremely long, and ultimately incredibly informing video!!!

Some of you may have watched this video before, it was made in the early 90’s; however, many of you have not.
If you are interested in the subject of creation theory and the flaws in the evolution theory, and you don’t have the time to watch it now, I suggest you do when you find some extra time. This video covers the Evolution Theory problem of missing links: it covers the lies and flaws about horse, whale, and human evolution. It covers the effect the evolution teaching has had on mankind. It covers the scientifically disproven lies taught to our children in the textbooks, and the way it infects their minds.

Dr. Kent Hovind (Granddaddy of YEC theory)

“Lies in the Textbooks”

Evolutionists like A Late One, and Arthur may want to start this video 30 minutes in... I doubt they will watch it at all though, and would be fully surprised if they read this post to this point...•


The US Government put Dr. Hovind into prison for years, for tax evasion and not paying taxes for the money he made selling his video lectures, even the one above, that you may be viewing now. I don’t know why he didn’t get a warning and a chance to pay off the taxes as they give most US Citizens, but he spent near a decade behind bars in a federal prison.

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/2015/07/10/hovind-free-jail-back-pensacola/29969745/
 
Last edited:

mtwilcox

New member
The theory of evolution deals with changes in populations over time, i.e. over generations. The population is of course made up of individuals, but each individual doesn't evolve. The process occurs over generations- each generation is slightly different from the previous one.

The basic idea is quite simple. You continue with your absurd word games. I guess it makes you feel good to waste people's time.

If you really believe this; How do you justify the fact there are fossils of animals that are anatomically indifferent to their Modern versions we share this planet with?

I Mean, if every generation is slightly different than the previous, there would be no fossils of animals that appear in the Modern world as living creatures whatsoever...

However, there are fossils of this nature, and this is a way to test creation theory. The theory of Creation is a testable theory, and these fossils are all evidence in its favor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow!!! This is just like in the Musick video I posted, when the one dude gets his leg busted off, and then they show a picture of a monkey and a drawing pad with a bird that looks just like the other bird, but a slightly different size of anatomy... I just busted one of your logic legs right out from under you, and your illogical belief system.

=M=

============================
Musick!!!

 
Last edited:

mtwilcox

New member
In your opinion:
Why would evolutionists go as far as to falsify findings to try to prove their theory?

a late one said:
They're not. Creationists however, lie and distort evidence all the time.

Oh no?

Video Time!!!

=M=

==========================
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Temp Banned
I disagree. They are a genus called “anax”. They can all be interbred, so they are all the same species.
Just like bees can all be interbred, and so on.



I gave My definition for the term “species” in My original Posts:
The largest group of animals capable of producing offspring.




How long have the Black Bear, and the Polar Bear been separated? They can still interbreed; I think your understanding of biology and reproduction is lacking.

How long exactly do you assume they have to be separated until they lose the ability to interbreed?



I didn’t Mean “seen by any human”, silly; although it has not; I mean, there is no evidence for speciation whatsoever: as in, the vast fossil record contains no proof speciation has ever occurred... did you watch the last video I posted about “Missing Links”?

Or, did you ignore that video, like you have apparently disregarded my questions in the original posts?

You jumped in all Willy Nilly trying to debate logical statements, without addressing any of my critical thought questions...



How do you define the term Species?

Not Static eh?
Like I asked you before; Do you think evolution happens fast or slow? It appears your plastic theory of evolution also allows you to believe macro-speciation does not happen whatsoever, for hundreds of Millions of years; given you accept the idea of species remaining anatomically unchanged for tens, and in some cases hundreds of millions of years...



There are plenty more examples of fossils of modern species of animals. You are choosing to remain ignorant of them, probably because they don’t fit your beliefs.

Do a little research, you will see what I’m talking about.

What would you say if I told you there have been Birds found in full form as fossils, that supposedly date back over 100 Million years?

Mosquitoes, Bees, Mice, trees of all kinds, crabs, starfish: the list goes on and on.

=M=

=============================

And now, for today’s extremely long, and ultimately incredibly informing video!!!

Some of you may have watched this video before, it was made in the early 90’s; however, many of you have not.
If you are interested in the subject of creation theory and the flaws in the evolution theory, and you don’t have the time to watch it now, I suggest you do when you find some extra time. This video covers the Evolution Theory problem of missing links: it covers the lies and flaws about horse, whale, and human evolution. It covers the effect the evolution teaching has had on mankind. It covers the scientifically disproven lies taught to our children in the textbooks, and the way it infects their minds.

Dr. Kent Hovind (Granddaddy of YEC theory)

“Lies in the Textbooks”

Evolutionists like A Late One, and Arthur may want to start this video 30 minutes in... I doubt they will watch it at all though, and would be fully surprised if they read this post to this point...•


The US Government put Dr. Hovind into prison for years, for tax evasion and not paying taxes for the money he made selling his video lectures, even the one above, that you may be viewing now. I don’t know why he didn’t get a warning and a chance to pay off the taxes as they give most US Citizens, but he spent near a decade behind bars in a federal prison.

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/2015/07/10/hovind-free-jail-back-pensacola/29969745/

Um, Kent Hovind isn't even highly regarded within creationist circles, in some cases strongly criticized for holding arguments already discredited and done away with within YEC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
 
Top