Our Websites

Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Cannibal?

The Discovery News article, “Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Cannibal,” provides a great teachable moment for those with open minds. The author claims T-rex was a cannibal because there were large teeth marks on a T-rex bone and T-rex “is known to have been the only big carnivore in western North America 65 million years ago.”

First of all, teeth marks don’t prove cannibalism. They could also be defensive marks from fighting each other. Male hippos have huge scars all over their body from fighting other males, not because they are eating each other. The T-rex may have been fighting for high ground that became scarce as the flood waters rose. It probably took several months to flood the world completely (see Seminar #6).

Second, every animal was vegetarian in the original creation 6,000 years ago (see Genesis 1:29-30). After the flood, God told Noah he could eat meat (Genesis 9). Of course, the men and animals may have disobeyed God’s dietary command after the fall even before the flood. The flood came because of their disobedience. I don’t know any way to prove they remained vegetarian until the flood came.

Third, all animals and plants were created in six days (see Exodus 20:11), about 6,000 years ago (see Seminar #1). So the idea of T-rex being the “only big … 65 million years ago” is illogical. Nothing died before man sinned (see Romans 5:8 and I Corinthians 15:21). Don’t let the constant propaganda about evolution and “millions of years ago” fool you: God’s Word is 100% true!

And last, it is easy to see how people who have accepted the evolution “religion” become “willingly ignorant” just as Peter predicted in II Peter 3. They are willingly ignorant of the creation; admitting there was a Creator might mean He owns the place and has rules! They ignore the flood because that demonstrates that He has authority to judge His creation and they are ignorant of the coming judgment.

The scoffers can bury their head in the sand all they like but God’s judgment is coming fast and sure. It would be very wise to find out who the Creator is and find out what He wants and DO WHAT HE SAYS!  He is not willing that any perish (II Peter 3:9). He loves you but is angry with your sin. He provided ONE way out for mankind. See our “How to be Saved” article.

I, for one, wouldn’t miss Heaven for the world!

,

Leave32 Responses to testTyrannosaurus Rex Was a Cannibal?

  1. Mike Ayala November 10, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    Hi Dr. Hovind,

    I wonder how many large animals were in the waters of the flood? I’m sure T-Rex would have been a nice addition to the aquatic menu.

    God bless you.

    Mike Ayala

  2. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 8:16 am #

    “The Discovery News article, “Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Cannibal,” provides a great teachable moment for those with open minds.”

    A person with an open mind would first read the paper, something Kent does not appear top have done.

    “First of all, teeth marks don’t prove cannibalism.”

    True. But no-one has said they do.

    “They could also be defensive marks from fighting each other. Male hippos have huge scars all over their body from fighting other males, not because they are eating each other.”

    Except hippos don’t deeply scar their opponents’ bones.

    “The T-rex may have been fighting for high ground that became scarce as the flood waters rose. It probably took several months to flood the world completely”

    If they were fighting for higher ground then they are unlikely to have become fossilised. I find the image of a dozen T-Rex’s standing on a mountain pinnacle fighting for the last piece of rock quite risible. Anyway, if you believe in The Hydroplate Theory then all animals would have been scalded to death long before they ran out of high ground. On the other hand, if you believe Kent’s snowball theory, they would have immediately frozen to death like the hairy mammoths.

    But what Kent misses is that the groove marks were discovered where the bone would have been guarded by a socket. An animal scrabbling for higher ground is unlikely to expend its energy in dismembering an already damaged beast. It is because of the unusual siting of the scarring that the researcher is postulating that the T-Rex may have been cannibalistic.

    “I don’t know any way to prove they remained vegetarian until the flood came.”

    How about looking at their dentition, a method that has always proved to be a pretty accurate measure of what a wild animal eats.

    “Third, all animals and plants were created in six days (see Exodus 20:11), about 6,000 years ago (see Seminar #1). So the idea of T-rex being the “only big … 65 million years ago is illogical”

    Then how come we have never discovered the fossil remains of a bigger animal?

    “Nothing died before man sinned (see Romans 5:8 and I Corinthians 15:21). Don’t let the constant propaganda about evolution and “millions of years ago” fool you: God’s Word is 100% true!”

    Cripes. It is a good job Adam and Eve did sin else now we would all be standing on each others shoulders trying to eat each other for lack of room.

    “They ignore the flood……”

    Kent, where did all the thousands of feet of sediment come from? I’ve not been able to find any creationist who has dealt with this problem.

    “The scoffers can bury their head in the sand all they like but God’s judgment is coming fast and sure.”

    And has been ever since religion started.

  3. H. Bosma November 10, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Only your first piony could be valid. Two and three are often proven to be incorrect.

    The point with the toothmarks is, that they are on bone. In your example of hippo’s they are on skin, which is not preserved in these old fossils.
    So scars on bone indicate always that some creature chewed on these bones.

    If you have read the article carefully, they also say “” While it’s possible that all or some of the gouges were the result of scavenging, Longrich and his colleagues think it’s likely that the dino-on-dino feasting happened after fights, a meal that would help the cannibal victor.”
    So they already incorporate other likely possibilities and not wild guesses like you do.

  4. Kenneth Tyner November 10, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    What’s funny is the fact their only real argument against “God did it”, is “nature did it” :)-

    That’s what science has been reduced to today!

  5. Geno Castagnoli November 10, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    First of all, teeth marks don’t prove cannibalism. They could also be defensive marks from fighting each other. Male hippos have huge scars all over their body from fighting other males, not because they are eating each other.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    With the understanding there’s a big difference between a scar on the body and tooth marks on bone, I tend to agree. I happen to think T-rex was more likely a scavanger (due to those small arms). The marks could just as easily be the result of scavanging as a fight.
    #####

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    The T-rex may have been fighting for high ground that became scarce as the flood waters rose.
    ####
    Geno comments:
    Again, not likely. First, there was no flood. Second, that kind of fight probably won’t leave major marks on bones. If there was a flood, why do we always find oak trees above the dinosaurs…. did those trees outrun the dinos to the high ground? Finally, why do we find the light flying dinosaurs (like pterosaurs) below the heavy bulky mammals (like elephants and hippos)? Sorry, Kent…. flood “geology” simply doesn’t work.
    #####

    Kent wrote:
    Second, every animal was vegetarian in the original creation 6,000 years ago
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Right. Those big sharp dagger-like teeth are so well suited for eating and grinding those luscious leaves as opposed to ripping flesh.
    #####

    Kent wrote:
    I don’t know any way to prove they remained vegetarian until the flood came.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Well, if T-rex was ever vegetarian shouldn’t there be at least one specimen with teeth more suited to eating plants than meat?
    #####

    Kent claims:
    They are willingly ignorant of the creation; admitting there was a Creator might mean He owns the place and has rules!
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Actually, multiple Gallup polls over a period of 30 years or so show consistently that roughly 80% of those who accept evolution also believe it to be a process of creation used by God (ie: theistic evolution). In other words, while all atheists may be evolutionists, only a small portion of evolutionists are atheists. This has been pointed out many times, but Kent Hovind has never been one to let facts get in the way of his opinions.

    In fact, this is one of the reasons Hovind has never been able to get anyone to take him up on his $250,000 “challenge.” His pre-conditions exclude roughly 80% of those who accept evolution by requiring they renounce their belief in God. (Note: There are other reasons, but this is a big one since it eliminates the vast majority of those who disagree with him.)
    #####

    Kent claims:
    They ignore the flood because that demonstrates that He has authority to judge His creation and they are ignorant of the coming judgment.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    No, I have carefully evaluated the evidence. Those things I would expect to see if there were, in fact, a global flood that had caused a massive extinction event are completely missing. All of the creation “science” proposals would sterilize the planet. Finally, if there were a flood, in order to get the modern diversity of life in only a few thousand years would require …. um…. evolution on a scale far beyond what any mainstream scientist proposes.

  6. Dennis November 10, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    “While it’s possible that all or some of the gouges were the result of scavenging, Longrich and his colleagues think it’s likely that the dino-on-dino feasting happened after fights, a meal that would help the cannibal victor.”

    Also, the evolutionairy reason for why it could be that way:

    “You’re killing a competitor and getting a free meal at the same time,” he explained. “The hunting is going to be better if you eat the other hunters.”

    Also: “There have been face bite marks from tyrannosaurs before, but those were most likely from squabbling, not feeding,” Holtz said. “These could only have been made after the dinosaur was dead.”

    Do you read the articles at all?!

  7. Randy Miller November 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    From the article,
    “Further supporting the attribution is the fact that T. rex is known to have been the only big carnivore in western North America 65 million years ago.”
    **
    It’s a “fact” that TRex is “known” to have lived in North America 65 million years ago?
    No it’s not!
    That’s my #1 problem with evolution theory/religion …
    These evolutionists like to call things “facts” that don’t come anywhere close to being provable.

  8. Don Carr November 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Eating meat has more do with learning the true nature of the scriptures beyond the parables – or milk. Recall Adam is a new creation and moves from the milk to the meat. So yes, Adam would have been something akin to a vegetarian prior to the fall – eating Light.

    Death is a recycling process where all matter that fell from the Light is purified and reclaimed. Eating flesh is part of this reclamation process. So is the shrinking of the sun, so is entropy etc. etc.

    An exodus is coming soon to a movie theatre near you. Much of this solar system will rise up a notch, while a lower system will move up to replace this system. There is a giant RESET, as another 6000 year cycle begins.

    Are we moving up this notch, or spending another 6000 years here? I’m for moving up a notch – at the very least.

  9. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    Randy Miller wrote:

    “It’s a “fact” that TRex is “known” to have lived in North America 65 million years ago?
    No it’s not!
    That’s my #1 problem with evolution theory/religion …
    These evolutionists like to call things “facts” that don’t come anywhere close to being provable.”

    Shhh Randy. Calm down. I don’t think there was a North America in -65million BC. In fact, it wasn’t invented until 1492 when Columbus sailed over the ocean blue.

    What geologists have found are fossilised remains of T-Rex in what is now known as North America. The silly, highly-educated boys have simply assumed that T-Rex’s fossilised bones are to be found in the same area it lived. How daft. Just because JFK is buried in Virginia doesn’t mean he was assassinated there.

  10. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    And Geno, you don’t get away scot free:

    “If there was a flood, why do we always find oak trees above the dinosaurs…. did those trees outrun the dinos to the high ground?”

    You are as bad as Randy. With limbs like that of course they did.

  11. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 5:15 pm #

    Geno comments:

    “Right. Those big sharp dagger-like teeth are so well suited for eating and grinding those luscious leaves as opposed to ripping flesh.”

    Oh dear, Geno. Have you never heard of the theory of evolution? Before the Fall crocodiles looked like koala bears, lions lived on marshmallows and mosquitos loved nothing better than to clean the lavatory pan after one. All well known facts (see Seminar #666).

  12. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:

    ‘What’s funny is the fact their only real argument against “God did it”, is “nature did it” -
    That’s what science has been reduced to today!’

    Isn’t there a rule here about being on topic? Kenneth, are you suggesting that if the beasts did not cause the injury then God did it? If not, what are you talking about?

  13. Jack Napper November 10, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    It’s a “fact” that TRex is “known” to have lived in North America 65 million years ago?
    No it’s not!

    Yes, it is a FACT that what we know now is. Get someone with better reading comprehension to explain it to you. The sentence does not say “it is a FACT that TRex was the only…”. FAIL.

    What’s really funny is that Theists make the exact same claim in regards to their position but rather than using something like evidence or facts that hold up a book.

    That’s my #1 problem with evolution theory/religion …
    These evolutionists like to call things “facts” that don’t come anywhere close to being provable.

    And what exactly is the definition of FACT? No seriously I would LOVE to know. I also think you might wanna look at how things are proven and what “provable” actually means.

    I certainly hope you’re not an attorney or work in law enforcement.

  14. Geno Castagnoli November 10, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:
    What’s funny is the fact their only real argument against “God did it”, is “nature did it” -

    That’s what science has been reduced to today!
    ######
    Geno points out:
    We do call them “natural” and “physical” sciences for a reason.

    Tell ya what, though….

    Keeping in mind that science relies on the constancy of natural laws, provide one test available to science that will demonstrate supernatural intervention. I’ve been asking creationists for this one for over 10 years. Will you be the first to provide it?

  15. Brandon Backman November 10, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Dr. Kent Hovind,

    I remember when I was younger I saw you on Dr. Carl Baugh’s Creation In the Twenty-First Century. The very imagination rendering theory of evolution had a binding around me. It drew me away from Christ and made me question my beliefs on a daily basis. It seemed very plausible as an small child that DNA could somehow mutate itself to the effect that it creates a new system in an attempt to create an organism that would be better suited for its environment. I reviewed your debate with Dr. Rainbow and through all my debates with everyone over the matter, this gave me renewed energy. The meaning with which evolutionists is now considered to be is different today than it was then of course, but only in a seemingly sad attempt to confuse the opposition and drive them into a corner. Most evolutionists today will tell you that evolution is the change in genetic frequency over time. In other words, they are referring to micro-evolution, the only observable, testable, and repeatable area of “evolutionary science”. It is not smart for evolutionists to say that these theories are separate and unrelated because they are interdependant upon eachother, which means that if one is wrong, they all have to be wrong. In other words, if abiogenesis is not possible, then evolution cannot be performed without a Creator, in this case the evolutionist backs into the corner and unrelates the two topics to try and say that we don’t know and you don’t know either, but we have evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old so we are still onto something. Well, let’s focus on that for a while. It is well known that measuring the past is historical science which uses assumptions to make up for the lack of observability, testability, and repeatability. If we assume that a layer of rock is at least 70 million years old, and then we test it with the idea that it is 70 million years old, we can say that well, if it has this much potassium or argon, well then if we can fit it to this data set we can make it 70 million years old which is exactly what we wanted. This isn’t operational science, this is science that is completely reliant upon assumption because I can assume that the same amount of potassium must suggest that it has to be only a little more than 4,000 years old based on what we have gathered from the last 140 years of research we can say that the half life of argon or potassium ranges from 3,000 years to 1.8 billion because we don’t know exactly when the potassium will become another element. As we use the less reactive dating methods that date further into the past, the more innacurate we get with results because we have had such little time to explore these topics.
    We can also say to an evolutionist, were did the sun come from in order for life to be present in a fashion that would support life? Well, from the Big Bang right?…That is a part of cosmic evolution, and has no support from physics because no matter how you look at cosmic evolution, matter does not create itself and can only be put into existence by an outside force. Then the evolutionist will claim one of two things, science doesn’t know enough about how the big bang came into being or that the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Well, if you believe in a God other than the one in the Bible, this might be a reasonable statement, but then you are making the evolutionary theory based upon that religion which then would force evolution out of schools. For those of you that believe micro-evolution could result in additions to the DNA structure codons, this has never been observed. You can adapt to cold or warm environments as much as you want, but you will never grow gills to swim in the water to cool off, and you will never grow feathers to warm up because these would be an addition to the DNA sequence which is not already precoded in the DNA like adaptation has. Unless the world had a lot of plasmids to go around everytime an organism wanted to get more complex, we will never see natural additions to the DNA sequence which results in something that helps an organism evolve. Even if we were to say that micro-evolution could result in macro-evolution, wouldn’t we expect all life to be naturally selected to death? If evolution is truly a random process of mutations, these mutations could just as equally go in reverse and cause the organism to be inadequately prepared for its environment. However, micro-evolution doesn’t lead to macro-evolution so it doesn’t really matter. Evolution is great at engaging the mind with imagination compelling pictures showing the similarities between bone structures. Evolution is also great at hiding the fact that pictures and every here and there a fraud of a “real ancestor” are about the only evidences that biological evolution can use.

    In the end, evolutionary theory holds up to be nothing more than a dangerous religious cult of people with great imaginations, egos and drawing skills.

    Not every evolutionist is directly or indirectly a “bad” person for believing in what they believe. It is just unfair for all of the other people with different beliefs that aren’t allowed to express their beliefs on how the universe has come to be in front of the classroom.

    Dr. Hovind and Dr. Carl Baugh, if it means anything to you, or if you even read this, you may not have saved me from going to Hell, but you did save me from the worst and almost addictive propaganda the world has ever seen and I am sorry for your current circumstance and I hope the best for you. Thank you for all your support.

  16. Michael Fisher November 11, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    “The T-rex may have been fighting for high ground that became scarce as the flood waters rose.”

    Given that T-Rex was one of the biggest baddest carnivores that ever lived, why didn’t he and his fellow dinosaur super-carnivores win all the battles for the highest ground, particularly versus poor pathetically small Mammalian predators? Why are ALL the big dinosaur super carnivores found BELOW all the small mammalian predators?

    And why aren’t the mega-herbavores found in the TOP layers of fossils?

    Those big corpses would have floated for a LONG time – and then drifted down to the top layers of sediment.

    I’m also really, really curious about how the PLANTS managed to sort themselves by sedimentary layers.

    Did the gynmosperms out run the ferns, but lose to the still faster running flowering plants?

    And with all those plants getting buried — where did all the currently LIVING plants come from? How did they get back to where they’re found today? Hawaii has HUNDREDS of plant species found in Hawaii — and nowhere else — how did they get there?

    Thinking minds can see that evolution answers all those questions — and creationism exactly none of them.

  17. Robert Thomas Pryor November 11, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Evolutionists so called facts are all based on a theory, which is not a fact! i.e. “Everything was created billions of years ago from a big explosion of nothing.” This is a theory. It’s a retarded theory, but it’s still a theory! There is no way to judge that something is a billion years old! Now all you God haters can believe that if you want to, but don’t try to say you have fact’s that prove your retarded theory, because what they are are more retarded theory’s to try to prove your first retarded theory!

  18. Emily G. November 11, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    Agree with you, Randy.
    Have you guys considered the offer of $500,000 from Dr. Hovind for ONE REAL proof for evolution?
    I guess the “long ago and far away” phrase is not letting you, right? Well, try reading the Bible and find out exactly what happened. It might help you put your puzzles together…

  19. Jerry Herrera November 11, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Dear Mr Hovind, (Kent) (Eric)
    I’m playing your Creation sermons on my Christian Internet radio station what I’ve been able download from your free downloads. If you have more mp3 audio that I can download please let me know.
    please contact me!
    God Bless.
    Jerry

  20. Nelson Tovar November 11, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Niceee… Thanks for sending this information to my e-mail… now i got something to tell my friends…

    I told some friends about the age of the Universe.. they got SO AMAZED.. hahaha… I explained about the C14 They didn’t know about it too…

    THANKS FOR PUBLISHING YOUR VIDEOS WITH HOURS OF HARD WORK… GOD WILL BLESS YOU =)

    Amen

  21. Geno Castagnoli November 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Brandon Backman claimed:
    …… based on what we have gathered from the last 140 years of research we can say that the half life of argon or potassium ranges from 3,000 years to 1.8 billion because we don’t know exactly when the potassium will become another element
    ######
    Geno asks:
    Really? What research is there that says there has been such a variation in half-life? What condition(s) caused it? Do you have a source?
    #####

  22. Geno Castagnoli November 12, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Emily G. asks:
    Have you guys considered the offer of $500,000 from Dr. Hovind for ONE REAL proof for evolution?

    #####
    Geno replies:
    That is not the offer. If one goes to the CSE website and searches “250,000″ you will get a link to the offer.

    First: Mr. Hovind’s offer is for $250,000, not $500,000.
    Second: The offer is not for “ONE REAL proof for evolution.” It specifically states “It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact.
    Third: It appears the offer has been re-worked. It now says the details are on the “drdino” website, but no link is provided. The old offer was explicit that one had to prove a number of things took place “without God”. This would mean that one who believes in God would have to renounce that belief. Doing so eliminates about 80% of those who accept evolution but believe it to be a creative process used by God. I, for one, will not renounce my belief in God for a promise of $250,000 that (probably) won’t be paid anyway. (See next item.)
    Fourth: There is no evidence the money is available. Hovind certainly doesn’t have it. There is only a claim that some unnamed benefactor “has the money in the bank.”
    Fifth: The judges are not identified and all are selected by Mr. Hovind. Even Dr. Walt Brown (hydroplate theory) agrees the judge of his debate offer will be mutually agreed on.
    Sixth: Hovind disputes changes in “kind”…. but he is unable to define “kind.” This is really convenient when looking for “reasonable” proof.

    At the page where Hovind’s offer is made, he suggests his opponents make an offer of their own. So, here it is:

    I will offer ONE MILLION DOLLARS to anyone who is able to prove the universe was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

    1.The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately.

    2.The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a cosmologist, a geologist, a physicist, a theologian, a paleontologist, and a microbiologist to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers. I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.

    3. Only empirical evidence may be presented.

    (Note: All of the conditions listed above are taken directly from or paraphrased from Hovind’s offer.)

    Any takers?

    Didn’t think so……

  23. Kenneth Tyner November 12, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Gino wrote:

    Keeping in mind that science relies on the constancy of natural laws, provide one test available to science that will demonstrate supernatural intervention. I’ve been asking creationists for this one for over 10 years. Will you be the first to provide it?

    My Reply:
    Gino, that’s the problem with the theory of evolution. There is no constancy of natural laws or one test available to science that will prove all life forms evolved from a common ancestor.

    However, there is a test that can be performed by anyone that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the scriptures are true, and has been performed more times than I know.

    Acts 2:37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

    Try this experiment out and you will know the truth. If the scriptures were not true, then no one could have ever received the gift of God.

  24. Jaap Maat November 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Hi Robert Thomas Pryor – just wanted to let you know that the word ‘theory’ is often confusing because in normal day talk a theory is just an idea, while scientists consider something a theory when it explains all available facts. As soon as one fact contradicts it, the theory falls, so it is telling that the theory has been fine-tuned in the last 150 years but only got stronger.

    The analysis of age is mind-boggling indeed, but there are good reasons to accept them. and those are not fear of God, as you think.

    Hi Emily G., the conditions to that money ( I thought it was 250k$) are set in such a way that it is not possible to use science as evidence. Science never excludes possible new explanations. That goes for all science, not just the theory of evolution. Oh and the judging is done in secret.

    Hi Nelson Tovar, you may enjoy a video response on YouTube going into the C14 arguments of Mr.Kent Hovind. It’s called “Carbon dating doesn’t work — debunked “. Basically it says that carbon dating only works on… carbon. Watch it and you’ll see why that matters to this debate.

  25. Tony Curtis November 13, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    I am already grounded in Creation and GOD so I know where I am going soon. but for the evilutionists, they are a sad case who sees the evidence and choose not to believe in GOD. anyway that is my 2 cents worth.. however, I do pray for them so that they may be save by Jesus Christ. Goodday

  26. Carl M November 14, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    @ Brandon Backman

    There are a few egregious comments you made which inspired me to comment.

    Most evolutionists today will tell you that evolution is the change in genetic frequency over time.

    The terminology is “change in allele frequency over time”

    In other words, they are referring to micro-evolution, the only observable, testable, and repeatable area of “evolutionary science”.

    The only difference between micro and macro is quantity of change. Mutations add new alleles and these alleles change the profile of the population.

    For those of you that believe micro-evolution could result in additions to the DNA structure codons, this has never been observed.

    Google “new allele” and prepare to be disproved.

    You can adapt to cold or warm environments as much as you want, but you will never grow gills to swim in the water to cool off, and you will never grow feathers to warm up because these would be an addition to the DNA sequence which is not already precoded in the DNA like adaptation has.

    You’ve confused a few things here. Individuals don’t change to match their environment, populations do.

    Unless the world had a lot of plasmids to go around everytime an organism wanted to get more complex,

    “Complexity” has nothing to do with plasmids, which are most common in bacteria.

    ….we will never see natural additions to the DNA sequence which results in something that helps an organism evolve.

    Did you do that Google search mentioned above?

    If evolution is truly a random process of mutations, these mutations could just as equally go in reverse and cause the organism to be inadequately prepared for its environment.

    Evolution is not “a random process”. You’ve overlooked Natural Selection which, as the name suggests, not random.

    It is not smart for evolutionists to say that these theories are separate and unrelated because they are interdependant upon eachother, which means that if one is wrong, they all have to be wrong.

    Nonsense. If the Roman Empire didn’t exist does that mean the American War of Independence didn’t happen?

    In other words, if abiogenesis is not possible, then evolution cannot be performed without a Creator, in this case the evolutionist backs into the corner and unrelates the two topics to try and say that we don’t know and you don’t know either,…

    I think you have confused atheism and evolution theory.

    If we assume that a layer of rock is at least 70 million years old, and then we test it with the idea that it is 70 million years old, we can say that well, if it has this much potassium or argon, well then if we can fit it to this data set we can make it 70 million years old which is exactly what we wanted.

    So evidence must be ignored if it meets expectations? Say what!

    … from the last 140 years of research we can say that the half life of argon or potassium ranges from 3,000 years to 1.8 billion because we don’t know exactly when the potassium will become another element.

    Potassium 40 – 1.25 billion years
    Argon 40 is a stable isotope.

    While, it is statistically impossible to predict when a single atom while decay (in any atomic process) because there are so many atoms in a sample the Law of Large Numbers comes into play to produce a statistically accurate result.

    As we use the less reactive dating methods that date further into the past, the more innacurate we get with results because we have had such little time to explore these topics.

    It does not take a long time to measure the atomic emmisions from a radioactive sample and apply some basic math.

    We can also say to an evolutionist, were did the sun come from in order for life to be present in a fashion that would support life?

    No. You would be asking an astrophysicist not a biologist.

    Well, from the Big Bang right?…

    Wrong.

    [1]…. but then you are making the evolutionary theory based upon that religion which then would force evolution out of schools.

    [2] It is just unfair for all of the other people with different beliefs that aren’t allowed to express their beliefs on how the universe has come to be in front of the classroom.

    Make up your mind. Do you want the First Ammendment enforced or not?

  27. Carl M November 14, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    @ Emily G

    Have you guys considered the offer of $500,000 from Dr. Hovind for ONE REAL proof for evolution?

    Actually, the stunt is for $250,000. And the goal is to convince Kent Hovind personally of a Universal Negative about the supernatural using emprical evidence.

    Quote: “Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under “known options”) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.”

    Nothing can meet that criteria.

  28. Geno Castagnoli November 14, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    Robert Thomas Pryor wrote:
    Evolutionists so called facts are all based on a theory, which is not a fact! i.e. “Everything was created billions of years ago from a big explosion of nothing.” This is a theory. It’s a retarded theory, but it’s still a theory!
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Right. YEC believe it was simply created from nothing without the “explosion.” I used to really enjoy it when creationists yammer on about mainstream science saying everything was made from nothing then refer me to AIG’s creationist journal “Creation ex nihilo” (Creation from nothing). (That journal has undergone multiple name changed since then.)

  29. Jack Napper November 14, 2010 at 2:37 am #

    Have you guys considered the offer of $500,000 from Dr. Hovind for ONE REAL proof for evolution?

    First it’s $250K. That is unless it’s been raised. Oddly enough I, like everyone else, would like to see proof of this cash. If CSE has all this cash on hand why does it seek donations for property purchases and legal defense?

    Why is the supposed “panel of experts” kept secret? What are their qualifications? Why must Kent Hovind be convinced before he will pass on the data/evidence to the panel that will research it and provide its findings to Kent? Seems a bit like putting the cart BEFORE the horse but hey.

    If you wanna see why no-one takes the challenge seriously simply type Ron Rayborne Accepts Hovind’s Challenge into any search engine and try not to laugh. Pay close attention to the dodge when Rayborne asks Kent to 1.) define kinds 2.) explain [basically] how he identifies, classifies and categorizes said kinds.

  30. Kevin Davis November 14, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    I find it amazing how many people tell you, or others who agree/believe what you do claiming you don’t read the science, or deny ‘the facts’ for evolution or whatever, whenever they themselves still don’t believe that a ‘flood occurred’ when there’s MORE than enough evidence for that.

    As more of a personal encouragement, Mr. Hovind, there might be a world of evolutionists or scoff or arrogantly put you down, but I think the world who prays and lifts you up every day will have a bit more of an effect on you.

    God bless and continue your ministry, and may he see you to a quick release so you may continue ticking off evolutionists until Jesus brings them about.

  31. andrew Ryan November 15, 2010 at 6:27 am #

    Emily G, Kent’s $500,000 offer places such restrictions that it would be impossible to prove the theory of gravity under the same conditions. Also, his own definition of evolution doesn’t match up with the scientific definition, such to he appears to demand proof of something that scientists themselves don’t believe in. It would be like me offering Kent half a million bucks to prove that Jesus existed, and include as one of my conditions that he must show Jesus was born in Chicago. Given that Kent doesn’t even claim Jesus was born in Illinois, my offer would be spurious.

  32. Geno Castagnoli November 15, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    Brandon Backman wrote:
    It is just unfair for all of the other people with different beliefs that aren’t allowed to express their beliefs on how the universe has come to be in front of the classroom.

    #####
    Geno answers:
    Do a Google search for “Service of Mankind” church. I’ll believe you’re interested in religious freedom when you tell me you are willing to allow their religious beliefs to be presented in the public school science classroom.