[Fwd: Re: The wonders of science.]

Ed Brayton (cynic@net-link.net)
Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:17:54 -0400

Message-ID: <352D9D25.7887@net-link.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:16:37 -0400
From: Ed Brayton <cynic@net-link.net>
Reply-To: cynic@net-link.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpayne@voyageronline.net
Subject: Re: The wonders of science.
References: <01BD627C.EFB93100.jdguzman@ix.netcom.com> <352D9627.4C13@voyageronline.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Payne wrote:
> Juan D. Guzman wrote:
> > I find it very odd that, while it is so evident to these scientists that
> > the rock had a maker, they look at living things and basically attribute
> > all of living nature to chance.
> In a debate with an evolutionist, YEC Kent Hovind once asked the
> evolutionist if he believed that the faces carved on Mt. Rushmore could
> have been the result of chance erosion by wind and water over time. Of
> course the evolutionist said "No way!" Kent then asked, "Then how about
> the men that the carvings represent, can they be the result of chance
> and time?"
> Bill Payne

In another debate with an evolutionist, Kent Hovind claimed that men
were smarter and stronger before the flood, and his proof for this was
that they could build the pyramids and we couldn't today. The man is
either breathtakingly stupid or a first class con man.