Start Hovind carbon dating

Hovind carbon dating

It's too bad that it's buried inside all the Bible-quoting and attempts at disproving Evolution. If you go to the beach in Pensicola, Florida you will see that it is "bare season" all the time there. But apparently making a joke about high school students erases all doubt that life exists outside our solar system. But wait, "these are the only two choices" so it really doesn't matter that I suggested a third one, does it? The Prentice Hall General Science Book states: "Eighteen to twenty billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page." (Prentice Hall General Science Book, 1992, page 61.) All the matter in the universe squished into a dot smaller than a period on a page?

And anyway, remember the book said "may have been." He goes on to present his interpretation of the Big bang Theory in an alleged conversation with a Berkeley professor. " He said, "Yes." I said, "Who supplied the energy? Hovind is making reference to Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover".

I think his concept of the theory is a bit clouded though. Anyway, he asks who made these laws of physics such as gravity. If matter existed, shouldn't we be able to deduce certain laws and formulae that govern it? We try to fit formula to natural events that we measure. Who squished it, spun it, and exploded it, and who bought the gas to run this machine anyway? The idea is that since everything in motion had to be set in motion by something else, God set the initial matter in motion.

This idea of majority of opinion being right is crazy.

Those doctors that killed George Washington were sincere men.

The only thing is, by this method, science is constantly getting closer to the truth. If I asked you the question, "When did the ship sink?

Pay close attention to this part, only because it is so completely stupid: I'll give you an analogy to show you how this works. " you would say, "I don't know;, I didn't see it; I just found the box." I say, "Okay, let's see if we can figure out when the ship sank.

If you find another coin in there from 1600, that doesn't mean anything.

We still know from the other coin that the ship sank after 1700.

From recent scientific articles I've read, I think I've got a better handle on the Big Bang theory than he does. The problem with this is, it excuses the conclusion from the initial assumption.

It's saying here we're assuming that nothing can be in motion without being set in motion by something else. I could just ask- "If you first say that nothing can be in motion without being set in motion, what set God in motion?

Then to solve the initial motion problem, it says "hey, let's invent a being outside our assumption." So they invent God and claim that He set things in motion. " I'd get the response "God is a supreme being and doesn't need to be set in motion." My response to that is, "hey you broke the assumption that nothing can be in motion without being set in motion, and you thus ruined the whole question.