Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I can't hear the discussion well enough to confidently jump right in on this guy. I am familiar with Hovind (I've seen him in person, gone through his entire video series and read a lot of his stuff) but I don't recognize the "professor."

I know that Hovind did a "debate" with a couple of guys who taught airplane engine mechanics at a trade school and lied when promoting video excerpts by claiming that they were "college professors." I don't know if this is the same outing.

This particular video was held at some university in california (i'm not sure which one) and was started between Micheal Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and Kent Hovind. Then in the question and answer section is the panel of three professors.

Originally Posted by pelathais

With regard to your question about "WALES" being on land...

Yes, Wales is a country on land located on the Island of Britain between England and the Irish Sea.

LOL. Thats what happens when your listening to a debate, working, and posting on AFF all at once. Anyway, his comment referred to wHales living on land, is that something you would affirm?

Originally Posted by pelathais

Please remember: Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds.

Agreed. Beliving the Genesis account of evolution theory can hardly be called mindless. Beliving God created all things rather than that all of the universe, creation, and every thing we know to exist came from a big bang from a object smaller "than a period on this page" is quite ridiculous and mindless. Believing that chicken are decendants from dinosoars, that wHales lives on land, and a hundred thousand such myths is quite mindless. (I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues, but these are some of the things I heard while listening to the debate)

Originally Posted by pelathais

Let me know if you want more info on this. Thanks.

If you don't mind.

Personally, regardless of whether or not Kent Hovind is a model Christian or not, there are SOME (not all) seeemingly very good arguments in the debate here. IOW his arguments cannot be dismissed simply because of his person.