Phoenix project kent Videos

+Jay Carlsen Ummm.......I think Kent Hovind knew EXACTLY what he meant when he said Jesus Christ VOLUNTARILY became sin in order to Save us. There are some preachers who believe this false doctrine. All I am saying is that he spoke a rather blasphemous statement, because Jesus never once sinned, nor did he VOLUNTEER himself to sin. Jesus DOES NOT have a sin nature, so how then could he voluntarily, meaning at his own expense, become sin. That makes no sense. If Jesus did in fact sin, then we all would have NO SAVIOR from Hell and his sacrifice on the cross would have been in vain and pointless. Kent Hovind, as smart as he is, and as large a following he has, has also been known to have some rather heretical beliefs, that do not have anything what-so-ever to do with the Biblical Scriptures. Reminds me of 1st John Chapter 4 Verse 1: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits wether they are of God: because MANY false prophets are gone out into the world." Anybody who believe Jesus Christ sinned at the cross to save mankind is likened unto that of the disgusting Roman Catholic Pope, who is a False Christ on Earth (since people treat him as though he were like a god), making blasphemous statements about Jesus Christ everywhere he goes and every time he gives a speech. 2nd Timothy Chapter 3 Verse 5: "Having a FORM OF GODLINESS, BUT DENYING THE POWER thereof: from such TURN AWAY."

+Venusstar22 He SUFFERED for OUR SIN............................. DUHHHHHHHHH How does Jesus Becoming OUR SIN'S , Make Jesus a Sinner ? I think you are putting to much INTO IT.

+Johnny Dangerousy Please don't group all religions into one like that. Unlike other holy books, the bible clearly states that women and men were equals from the beginning, though it puts the man at the head of the household (and for good reasons...but I digress). The bible instructs fathers to teach the scriptures to their children...the boys AND the girls...so the only way religion can control the population is if fathers neglect their God-given duties. All that to say, the Catholic church strictly forbade anyone but their priests from reading (and interpreting) the scriptures for centuries! THEY told US what it said, and if WE didn't tow the line, we were excommunicated (at best) or tortured and killed (at worst). The reformation served to return the bible to ALL people, BUT most of us STILL won't read/study/teach it, ergo it is by OUR OWN wilful ignorance that we're so easily controlled by our leaders. The vast majority of us simply will not read/study/teach the scriptures for ourselves, as they repeatedly and plainly tell us to do.Hosea 4:6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. 7The more they multiplied, the more they sinned against Me; I will change their glory into shame

He's free now, I know, thank God

No

+david ward Northern Aggression ? What Happened to UNTIED WE STAND / DIVIDED WE FALL ? It was about States Rights , Not Slavery. Lincoln did not OWN Slaves , He came from a Poor Family. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't given until Lincoln got Word that the South had sent delegates to France to ask for a Loan for the War Effort. Were they allowed this War Loan? We would be Flying the Stars & Bars right now.

+Will Hart Absolutely agree.

+Sam Waldorf Ice does not have more or less air then water. Ice is just crystalized water.When water crystalizes, the volume increases so the density lowers.

+Rolo Beorn so air weighs more than water? and ice has less air than water? 

+Sam Waldorf WTF You don't know anything!Ice is not less heavy because of trapped air.Ice is less dense because the crystal structure of H2O.The crystal structure causes it to increase in volume.

+Rolo Beorn simpletons like me know that land isn't floating and the general scientific community wouldn't only test levels on a landmass that did float. ice is less heavy than water due to air trapped, hence the floating... just about everything you said is wrong. and its very simple. why you have the audacity to call ME a simpleton is beyond me... 

+Sam Waldorf Dude, get some scientific knowledge in your empty brain.At the end of an ice age, much land ice comes into the oceans which increases the sea level.It also releases a lot of pressure (ice is rather heavy) which causes area's to rise in elevation.If such an area borders an ocean, then the sea level will seemingly decrease.That's called post-glacial rebound.Norway is an example of that.That system can cause land that lies next to the ocean to rise in elevation because of melting glaciers.Simpletons like you  might turn this into evidence that the sea level is decreasing.

+Rolo Beorn the sea level is decreasing each year in altitude. if you don't google that and tell me im wrong I will not reply again to you. also when it comes to the ice in Antarctica, check out all kinds of evidence that says its growing each year. I think it said on average about 200 billion "someodds" (gallons? maybe)  per year.  I can either show you a particular state's weather history, or you can look for yourself. or you can ask me one in particular and I will show you the nonsense you speak of isn't true.

+Sam Waldorf This is ridiculous.The article you gave  is ludicrous.What does it matter the arctic ice cap covered 60% more surface?That doesn't mean the thickness of the ice cap grew...and that's what matters."so youre telling me, that if a glacier melts somewhere, and grows somewhere else, that people can pick and choose facts to indoctrinate dumbasses "=>How incredibly stupid are you?A glacier is like a river of ice that comes down a mountain.The top of a glacier is higher in elevation then the bottom.Every winter the glacier grows, obviously more at the top.Every summer the glacier melts and might grow a little bit.If the growing is smaller then the melting, then the bottom will retreat...because of gravity.Almost all glaciers in the entire earth are melting.Local weather and precipitation causes glaciers often to grow but that's always temporary.I've traveled extensively.You can sea glaciers retreating in the Alps, Pyrenees, Norwegian  mountains  Rocky Mountains and in Alaska.Even in the Brooks Range of Alaska, glaciers are in retreat..Tree lines are also rising.

was that link good enough?

+Rolo Beorn that wasn't my original source, but I typed in the key words and that popper up... ill read it over, if it isn't on point ill do some more digging 

+Sam Waldorf Which one? That article?

the source I stated

+Sam Waldorf Look what up? 

+Rolo Beorn you could look it up the same as me.. if u need me to, I will- on the phone, ill do it in a minute 

+Sam Waldorf Yes climate changes all the time. The global climate is  warming so we call it global warming...what's wrong about that?And yes the Sahara was not always a dry desert.I think from maybe 10000 to 5000 years ago, the Sahara got more rain.The Sahara and Arabia are  like a pathway between Africa and Eurasia.When it's a dry desert, not many animals populate the area which separates the animals of Africa and Eurasia.When there is more rain, the area is heavily populated which causes animals of Africa and Eurasia to mix and interbreed.That causes the difference between the animals in Africa and Eurasia.It's called the Sahara-pump.Beringia does the same for Eurasia-America.I don 't know what sources you use but the Sphinx of Giza was built maybe 4500 years ago...the Sahara was a dry desert back then.

+Rolo Beorn well you can go ahead and do a quick google search that include many government websites that claim the exact opposite. I don't think you are very clever though. In the 70's they said "next ice age", followed by "global warming"  next its being called "CLIMATE CHANGE". hmmmm... anyone with half a brain knows climate change is normal, but WHY has it morphed into this term? because people know global warming is nonsense. glaciers are melting? boohoo, that's what happens in the world. deserts turn to rain forests, and forests into deserts.... wahhhhwahhh! it as natural as are the seasons. unless you don't understand those either? well if you live in the eastern hemisphere... CLIMATE change is coming! be fore warned! global warming! for aprrox 3 months, then after it cools for about 3, it will be an ice age! for about 3 months.. and all the plants in the world will die!  oh wait? that normal, and happens all the time like clockwork ? hmmm. so when its winter here, its summer on the other side of the planet? hmmm... so youre telling me, that if a glacier melts somewhere, and grows somewhere else, that people can pick and choose facts to indoctrinate dumbasses who troll the web and flat out refuse scientific articles, government website , university professors and anyone with common sense who challenges their faith?  oh yeah... I already knew that part, cuz I read what you posted.

+Sam Waldorf You obviously believe only what you want to believe.That articles is full of nonsense.Glaciers all over the world are melting.Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerating speed.The average temperature rises in most places on earth.Global warming causes more snowfall.Less intelligent people might interpret that as 'evidence' for global cooling.

+Rolo Beorn here is one.... just for shits.  //www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm   incase you're too lazy to read that. it says the ice cap increased 60% in 1 year.  you were right... that's a long time.

"it takes a very long time for ice to form on Greenland and Antarctica " ... this is nonsense. Semi recent studies that refuted "global warming"  before it became "climate change"(lol) showed an enormous increase in Antarctica. There are also accounts from around 1200 that describe Greenland very differently. maybe also you didn't know that around the sphinx(largest) the rock shows that the area was something tropical with near constant rain. Deserts come and go, climate changes and that statement you made was completely false. Am I to show you articles and studies? If I am forced to do that, I will also show how incapable you are all around. In for a penny, in for a pound. 

I don't care whether it's possible for meandering canyons to form because of a flood. Logic dictates it can't.There is countless evidence against the  biblical flood.-Many civilizations are a lot older then the flood.-The great Pyramid of Giza was built before the flood.-Many trees date a lot older then the flood.-Pressure melts ice. So all land ice would come loose during the flood, and be dropped randomly over the entire earth.So where does all the current land ice come from?It takes a very long time to form the ice on Antarctica and Greenland.-Radiometric dating of course destroys the creation story of the bible.-In ice in glaciers and ice caps we find 100.000's layers...where do they come from?-The flood would destroy coral reefs. So where does the great barrier reef come from?-There were 8 people on the ark right? How did 8 people took care for all the animals on the ark?-A countless amount of animals lives in undeep water or in mud.They could not survive the flood and could not be kept on the ark.-Many plants can survive being flooded but not by such a huge amount of water.All the plants on land and in the oceans would be destroyed by the increased water pressure.-Many animals have a strict diet.How did Noah take care of that on the ark?Your loving god knows the future so he knew he had to kill most people in the flood before he created Adam and Eve.Being an uneducated indoctrinated fool is the only way you can be a creationist.

+Rolo Beorn  that isn't true. floods create equal patterns only faster. I've seen this a few times personally. I'm not really getting into this debate, but that is incorrect information.

+Al Goma excellent analogy

+Al Goma He can't refute anything we've said (let alone anything in the video) so he doesn't even try. Don't be surprised if he comes back with mono-syllables like "wow", or, if you're lucky, you may get a whole, hypocritical sentence like, "It just amazes me what you believe"... Not surprisingly, he doesn't appear the slightest bit "amazed" at water running uphill, so...yeah...Only the theory's important to evolutionists. Not the facts.

+Rolo Beorn Sorry champ, but the Grand Canyon is not proof for evolution, not by a long-shot :D. There is weighty evidence for interpreting the Grand Canyon as being formed in a relatively rapid succession of events and not over a period requiring millions of years to explain. A fine example of this was observed in 2002, when heavy rains in Central Texas caused the Canyon Lake Reservoir to spill over and gouge out a seven meter deep, 2.2 kilometer canyon. Keywords: (Caltech geologist investigates Texas flood carved in just 3 days). The conditions during the formation of the Grand Canyon and this one were obviously not exactly the same, but please do read the article and examine the photos of this miniature version. Note the incredibly steep sides and also some meanders, albeit not as pronounced. Are you sure you have more than a caricatured understanding of the biblical flood? I hope you would consider viewing flood models that extend beyond Sunday school pamphlets and at least watch the following (2) presentations: (Bryan Nickels Hydroplate Theory Overview & Hydroplate Theory the Origin of Earth Radioactivity) in order to understand more about what you have been so eager to criticize.

+Rolo Beorn My 2nd comment yesterday must have been blocked by Google's not-so-helpful spam filter due to the (2) links that I included. I will repost it again now without them and only include the necessary key words for locating those links yourself via Google search.

+Rolo Beorn Like the stupid IGNORE-amus you are, you completely IGNORED every other thing I said... as well as Al Goma's comment! DUH!Mt St Helens discredits the evolutionary model of vast ages all by itself. That's why you won't study it. And, as if THAT wasn't already enough, the headwaters of the Colorado River are at a lower elevation than the top of the Kaibab Plateau which the Grand Canyon cuts through. Do YOU know how canyons are formed, you incredibly stupid person who believes water MUST run uphill? DUH!!! Maybe you should've stuck to one word comments...

There are many trees older then 6000 years... The Grand Canyon is proof for evolution. A meandering canyon like Horseshoe Bend can only be formed with a river and a lot of time. A flood creates +- straight valleys/canyons...it can't create meanders.And no, water doesn't run uphill you indredibly stupid person.Do you know how canyons are formed?

+Rolo Beorn Yes, it would be ignorant to believe in your caricatured version of the biblical flood story commonly spoofed on atheist YouTube channels, i.e., NonStampCollector. I suspect this is the result of how the story has been portrayed for decades in Sunday school pamphlets containing animations aimed at a five year old audience. One would no sooner watch an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends and gain insight into the nature of steam locomotive technology.

+Rolo Beorn Speaking of ignorance/stupidity:~ Sedimentary layers (that stretch around the ENTIRE globe), are so consistent with flood geology that evolutionists HAVE to admit "local" floods made them...just not a GLOBAL one. SO stupid! They'll say Mars, a planet with virtually NO water, had a global flood, but Earth, an estimated 70% water, NO WAY! Haha! DUUUUHHH!~ Sedimentary layers also have NO erosion marks between them... AND they are NEVER found in the same order as the colourful cartoon drawings in text books. EVER! LOL DERP!~ Let's not forget how evolutionists CHOOSE to IGNORE some 270+ archaeologically verified ancient accounts, from diverse cultures around the world, that tell of a GLOBAL deluge. DOH!~ Polystrate trees. Evolutionism's explanation for this phenomenon is just plain STUPID. ~ coal/oil/emeralds/diamonds/etc., can now be made in labs in a matter of days/weeks, not the VAST ages evolutionists stupidly believe~ stalagmites/stalactites/fossils/etc., form naturally in months/years, not the VAST ages evolutionists stupidly believe~ We should literally be tripping over dead bodies today if the VAST evolutionary time scale was correct, but we're not. Evolutionists stupidly believe VAST ages, despite the conspicuous absence of all those missing dead things, anyway. Talk about IGNORE-ant!~ Fresh dinosaur tissue...DOH!~ Mt St Helens' radio-metric dating, stratigraphy, flood deposits (including polystrate trees), etc., strongly support YEC claims that the Grand Canyon formed quickly as the waters assuaged at the end of Noah's flood. That, and the evolutionist's own fantastical narrative about how the Grand Canyon formed slowly, proves evolutionists are ignorant, stupid and/or lying. Water does not run uphill. STUPID!I could go on... but you probably already stopped reading anyway, and you certainly won't fact check my claims let alone those of your own scientists to make sure you aren't being lied to. Like I said, it's your immortal soul. Do with it as you stupid/ignorant self pleases. Eternity's a LONG time. I pity you. 

+EnemyofEVILution thanks'wow' is just a reaction on your reply. What's wrong with that?It doesn't mean I don't want an answer... There are many things that make the biblical flood impossible.Believing in those things is ignorance/stupidity beyond belief.

+Rolo Beorn And I, you! You creep Christian videos that you probably don't even watch, ask us questions that you don't want answers to, and YOU find OUR logic "amazing"? Wow! Just wow!Scientific data backs biblical claims. (That's why Hovind won every debate he was ever in ~ and why evolutionists never debate him any more). Genetic research proves we have been steadily DE-volving toward extinction since "mitochondrial Eve", the mother of us all (who, coincidentally, lived about 6000 years ago, the exact same time the biblical Eve came into being)...but you keep clinging to your "amazing" fairy story, with all its colourful cartoon drawings in place of tangible, scientific evidence, if that's what you prefer. It's not my immortal soul you're gambling with. I feel sorry for you.

+EnemyofEVILution It just amazes me what you believe.

+Rolo Beorn You did ask. What's the problem?

wow

+Rolo Beorn Incest wasn't a thing until Moses' day when God commanded that close relatives should no longer mate. As you know, genetics studies have proven that there are approximately 6 mutations per generation. Adam was created perfect, his wife was taken from his rib, so she too, was perfect (genetically speaking...until they sinned and a curse of death was pronounced on the whole Earth). We have been DEvolving toward extinction since then, as the observable genetic mutation rate clearly seems to support. Close relatives have not been able to have viable offspring since the time of the Exodus. That is when incest became a thing. Hope that helps.