Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
But not in Britain, where Darwin lived. Hovind knows that.
Darwin was using the word “race” to mean “species,” not ethnicity.
From Descent of Man:
"But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species,
"is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases,
"as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed...
"This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species,
"but it shows that they graduate into each other,
"and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."
And from Voyage of the Beagle:
"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil.
"I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country.
"Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you,
"of your wife and your little children being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder!
"It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen
"and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty,
"have been and are so guilty."
Uh, Kent, Darwin was married, to a very devout Christian woman.
Hovind gives as his source the Autobiography of Charles Darwin,
but searching the Project Gutenburg copy for this text comes up empty.
From Descent of Man:
"With women, marriage at too early an age is highly injurious;
"for it has been found in France that, 'Twice as many wives under twenty die in the year,
"as died out of the same number of the unmarried.'
"The mortality, also, of husbands under twenty is 'excessively high,'
"but what the cause of this may be, seems doubtful.
"Lastly, if the men who prudently delay marrying until they can bring up their families in comfort,
"were to select, as they often do, women in the prime of life,
"the rate of increase in the better class would be only slightly lessened."
Wrong on two counts:
Evolution does not preclude a creator,
only certain accounts of how he might have gone about his work.
It is also not blind chance, but on the application of physical laws.
Uh, Kent, the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848,
11 years before Darwin published Origin of Species.
No, it doesn't.
In an environment where strength isn't an issue, the strong might very well die out
to the faster, or the more nimble, or the smaller.
It all depends on the environmental pressures.
The Trail of Tears was in the 1830s, two decades before Origin was published.
If Kent isn't lying about having read Mein Kampf,
then he's lying by omitting the fact that the book makes numerous references to God
and how Hitler believed he was doing God's work by eliminating the Jews.
Of course, if Hitler had really been a Darwinist, he would have done nothing at all,
because he would have believed that natural selection would have
taken care of the Jews without him doing a thing.
The Great Pyramid is off by over 5 degrees,
any cursory study will show how it was built,
and yes, we could build it much more efficiently today,
although we wouldn't have any purpose at all for doing so.
Using the most generous length for a cubit,
the ark was at most 53 inches on its longest side.
That's less than 4 and a half feet.
The sarcophagus in question is over 6 feet long.
Wrong. We can measure continental drift,
see the evidence for thrust faulting in the past,
observe the trenches in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans,
and see the correlations in the geography of separate continents that were once together,
all of which act to confirm this.
How, Kent? There's no land at the North Pole!!
Genesis 1:14:
"And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens
to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years."
No, Kent, six million years.
Absolutely false.
Science has a number of different techniques for determining the amount of C14 in the atmosphere
over the past 45,000 years, the practical limit of carbon dating.
Yes, don't fall for it, because only creationists liars like Kent Hovind make that statement.
As I said, carbon dating only goes back about 45,000 years.
Parallax measurements can be taken 6 months apart,
when the Earth is opposite its orbit around the sun,
increasing that distance to 186,000,000 miles.
Blatant quote-mining.
Reading the rest of the chapter shows quite clearly that Darwin believed the eye evolved,
and posited a mechanism for it doing so
which has been shown to be quite accurate by modern findings.
Even other creationists acknowledge the finding of every scientist who observed the carcass,
all of whom say it's a dead shark.
His chart only goes back to 1950,
and doesn't show that in the 1930s crime was even larger.
He also doesn't include the drop in crime rates starting around 1990.
Hovind knows perfectly well that cells do not come from rocks,
since rocks do not contain organic chemicals.
He also knows there was no sex, as bacteria do not reproduce sexually.
*** reproduction took billions of years to evolve.
If this conversation really did take place as Hovind claims,
the scientist would have laughed in his face.
How can anyone trust this bozo, or say that he is anything but a blatant liar?