Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Sociologically speaking, I'd say you probably post items on this site because you probably need the attention. I belong to this site because I'm sick of seeing christianity everywhere I go, and hearing ignorant arguments such as 'evolution is false'.
You didn't respond to anything I put forward, instead you decide to call me out as a whiner/crybaby whatever (a 200-lb baby to you, sir) and that's sidestepping what I've called you out on.
Here's a challenge, Chuck. Tell me, why are you here? You claim to be a proud Christian, so why are you on a site for Atheists? Do you aim to try and convert some of us, do you aim to 'prove those dumb atheists wrong', or are you so unpopular with your own church that you need somewhere to vent?
Also, if you're so convinced that evolution is 'false', then you provide proof. You ask for proof in something you don't 'believe in', and yet you provide no evidence to the contrary.
Be aware, you must then explain the generational adaptations in viruses, bacteria, and human beings. Our ancestors had different skull shapes, more hair, bigger bones and shorter overall body heights. Why would that be, Chuck? Also, what about skin color? We know for sure darker skin is a result of more melanin in skin cells... There really isn't any other reason.
Without evolution and adaptation, what's the point of having different skin colors?
Biology says it's due to location globally, darker skin is needed the closer to the equator you live. And visa versa, the farther from the equator you go, the lighter the skin color.
What, if any other reason would there be? Evolution is not a belief, it's historical fact.
You don't have to believe in gravity because scientists found that out... But gravity remains there whether you believe in it or not.
Religion comes from fear... You're welcome among this community if you want intellectual debate, a community of people who actually care about other people, and interesting topics.
But I stand by a few key points here, Chuck:
1.) Atheism is not a religion, it is a philosophical standing.
2.) I think you would be happier on 'christian forums' where you can share your religious views.
3.) Religious views should be respected, but they have no place on an atheist forum (seriously, bro)
and finally,
4.) Arguing with you is pointless. You keep bringing up your god, and nobody here cares. You want proof that what we find conviction in is 'false', when you seem to be the ONLY one here who things ridiculous things like 'evolution is a lie'. The only reason I could find this to be true is again if you can't find solace in a christian forum, or you've made the task of disproving that which cannot be disproved your 'mission'.
I wish no harm on you, I don't hate you, and I've done my best to remain civil, though I wrote a damn book responding, and I'm aware of that. I do however think you're in the incorrect place to share religiosity.
I also think its a shame that you go to church, when you could be doing so many more fun things with your life! But if the church really is that big to you.... For the last time (for cryin' out loud) WHY are you on an Atheist forum?!
I'll leave your post alone, man. I've already written too much. But if you've been here for years (as Lmale or someone said).... There's obviously a reason you haven't left.
One compliment I must give you though, Chuck is you use much better English than many religious folk I know. So good on you!
And I'll keep my tailbone, thanks. The appendix though, that can go and I wouldn't miss it.
You go enjoy your church, man. I'll go and enjoy life as it was meant to be enjoyed: no guilt that some invisible man is judging me for being myself.
There's so much "ignorance" in that post that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, atheism has nothing to do with being against religion. That would be an "anti-theist." Atheism is no more a religion than "theism". Religions, by definition, are organizations of people who share in common a set of beliefs, doctrine, dogma, scriptures, customs, traditions and rituals. The only thing atheists share in common is their lack of belief in gods.
While not all atheists share a belief in evolution, the theory is based on "verified" observations. Neither does the theory of evolution deny the existence of god. Rather, it merely renders stories about "magical creation" as myths. It could well be that evolution is god's way of creating life, but science only posits on what it can verify, and not on what it can't. So, on the existence of an unknowable invisible entity that can neither be observed or tested, science, and the theory of evolution, are silent. The belief in god is neither "verified" or "observed".
Given that the person who wrote this doesn't seem to understand any of it, I seriously doubt that they ever were an "atheist." Sounds more like someone who hated god and god's religions. Hating someone or something is not the same thing as lacking belief in them. In fact, it takes belief in them to hate them.
Right?
We can't hate 'god' or 'gods', just like we can't hate pink fluffy unicorns that obstruct jet traffic.
Hi i quit this site about a year ago partly because i cant stand liars like chuck.
He has been schooled with indepth nicely written posts which he replys to with verbal diharrea.
He knew absolutely nothing about evolution the bb or even atheism that is not on creationist or apologetic websites and usually does not even understand the 'points' he made let alone the rebuttle.
He is practically a founding member of wibac. Willfully ignorant branch of American Christianity.
The site I am now using has a strictly enforced bnbr policy and profiles that are fraudulent ie pretending to be ex atheist (which is oddly very fashionable among Christians despite Thou Shalt Not Bare False Witness, they consider lying to atheists to be permitted as and sin committed for god is not a sin to them) and sincr they never do research they are easily spotted. Like claiming that trusting the scientific method (arguably mans greatest ever achievement) which is specifically designed to rule out fakes and liars (as we know about bias so rule it out with unbiased peer review among other methods) is the same as blindly worshiping some god.
They also claim some old book is more reliable than gigantic mountains of evidence, not something an ex atheist is ever likely to say one cannot have an understanding of evidence and science and suddenly decide it means less than the raving scribbles of uneducated shepherds.
If you want to know what site I use pm me, I just thought I would let you know that chuck has learned nothing in years on here (hasn't even tried) so is completely beyond hope don't waste your time.
Pragmatic excuse me for a little while I have to say hi to my good buddy Lmale.
How have you been buddy? I've wondered were you were.
I think your bigger problem is that you can't prove your belief system in a way that is irrefutable. So you tucked tail and ran so you wouldn't have to come to the understanding that God created everything in a way that it simply depends on what your world view is that will cause you to decide it took billions of years in which I have shown you that you can't prove by any one thing nor by many things how old they are, or that God created it in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago. As you know nothing has a date stamped on it, c14 dating doesn't work, and someone's assumptions and wild imaginations isn't prof either. As facts that I have given you from the thickness of the dust on the moon, to the time it took for the Grand Canyon was formed, to how quickly things can be petrified, and that trees couldn't have lasted thousands of years in order for the many layers they go through to build up around them so they could become petrified, that your favorite evolutionist claim it took. What else will it take to convince you that your simply relying on what some man wrote down or told you on tv. I wonder if Hollywood had granny from the Beverly Hillbillies to fight Jet Lee and she whipped his tail, if you would believe that also? Lol.
Well, I'm glad to have you here, dude. This is a community for those who don't have a religion, or don't care to indulge in it.
People like Chuck are little too... Well, ignorant I guess to realize that.
Regardless, I want to thank you personally for being a part of this expanding community, and hope you stick around!
....I also think it's hilarious that people like the OP don't seem to realize how dumb they look by doing this.
I could do the same by posting about how much I love Honda on a Harley Davidson forum... Pointless trolling douchebaggery.
Also, I'm sad I can't 'agree' more times than just the one.
Stay safe out there in this crazy world!
The Pragmatic
The best way I can answer you is to give you my testimony, but first;
This is the definition of atheist:
.a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer
When I first came on this site, mainly Lmale tried to claim that I wasn't an atheist because he claimed I didn't know the things that he believes an atheist should know. Yet he also claimed that not all atheists fully disbelieve in God and that they don't all believe the same thing, which is basically what the definition says. Some have strong disbeliefs in God and try to come up with anything they can that they can add their opinions to in order try and discredited the truth of God. Other's simply disbelieve in God and don't care about coming up with anything to discredit God. They just don't believe. In which both are atheists, they don't believe in God.
I was somewhere in between. I thought I knew enough to put any believer in his place. After all how hard could it be right. I used what several in this site has used on me "you can't prove God to exist so therefore He can't exist. And yes I went into more than just that one point many times. So it seems that according to some on this site you have to agree with them or you shouldn't be on here, but what is the point in debating then?
So according to the definition of atheist, I was an unbelieving atheist.
I used to live in the state of Illinois were there wasn't many people that I came in contact with that actually lived a life standing for God. Then I moved to Tennessee were many people are not afraid to live according to what they believe and they are not ashamed to tell or talk to others about the truth they found in Christ. One day at work an assistant plant manager asked me if I wanted to join him and others for a bible study at break time. I let him know I don't believe in that stuff. He asked me a very good question "if God showed me the truth would I follow Him?" I said if God really showed me that He is real, then yes I would follow Him.
Then he asked me if he could give me some gospel tracks. So he began giving them to me every morning. We also started having a little debate ourselves once a week after work. You'll never guess what happened when I got home after our first meeting after work. When I got home I opened my mailbox and there was a magazine I had never ordered in it.
It was a Time Life magazine, and on the cover of it was the newly found skull of the newest so called missing link Lucy. Oh wait that is another coincidence right. Isn't that always the case when something can't be explained? How was it that that magazine wasn't sent to me at another time? Anyway I took that magazine in with me for our next meeting. I pulled out my new magazine and he pulled out his bible.
We went back and forth that evening, and a few others. Then on what became the last of our debates, he gave me a video from Dr. Kent Hovind.
I took it and told him I would watch it.
I was arguing against it over half way through, but he kept showing stuff that could be checked out that gives real evidence of things like petrified wood in which evolutionist claim take a very long time to petrify. When in fact there are many things including wood that has petrified within a couple of years. And many other things he brought out. I'm going to run a rabbit here for a few.
You see it's one thing to look at something and study it and come to a conclusion of what you think about it. But as soon as someone comes up with something else that shows a contradiction to what your conclusion was, especially the time it takes for whatever the process was, then you have to take another look at it from the New evidence. Most of the time evolutionist ignore evidence that discredits there agendas. But since most television stations support a billions of years evolution based theory, it makes it harder to show real evidence to the contrary. There are many things I can go into that I have learned about since I got saved. The problem is that most evolutionist and atheists will ignore them and will not check them out, but yet I'm the one they claim won't check things out that they tell me to, yet many of those things I've already looked at. How embarrassing would it be for any of you that some of the things you believe take so much time is shown to you in front of a huge crowd that it doesn't take so long, just because you wouldn't check it out for yourself. Most on this site like to try and use so called evidence that is out of the scope of anyone being able to show an absolute truth of what is taking place. Those are usually things in space. But just because someone can't show anything more about stars than an evolutionist can, it doesn't make the evolutionist thoughts on the matter any more valid than a creationist thoughts on the matter. We have the same evidence to go by, just a different world view to start with. One thing we do have in space that is evidence contrary to evolutionists is the dust on the moon. I'll go into that later if you would like. Oh yeah and the fact that comets are still buzzing around the solar system. Hey you know what the more I think about it the more evidence I can think of that really goes against billions of years.
So back to my testimony.
So by the end of the video I realized that it was very probable that God exists. After all there is nothing in the universe that can be used to discredit the existence of God. So after the video I kept thinking on it and this something I nor anyone else has been able to explain came over me, or within me. Not in my head so much but like it was in my soul. It was like my eyes were being opened to something I had never contemplated before. I realized it was really true. I then actually spoke to God and said I believe, but because I was so excited I told Him I wanted to see the rest of the videos before I actually accepted Him. The way He just kept wrestling with me on the inside, I was surprised I was able to sleep that night. When I got up in the morning it was like He just continued. I went to work and I couldn't wait for Silas the assistant plant manager to come by like He did every morning to give me a track. Yet that morning he was running late getting back to my area. But God was pouring it on me stronger and stronger. So I just had to pray and ask Jesus to forgive me and that I wanted Him in my heart. And glory, glory, glory He saved me. Within about 15 minutes here came Silas. I headed towards him and said I believe with my hand in the air pointing to Heaven.
My heart was changed (not the pump in my chest), the core of my beliefs. That same day at work God established something in me that just helped tremendously in settling how real He was. You see I had a very filthy mouth before I was saved, and I had been told by someone who claimed to be a Christian that as long as you didn't use God's name while cussing it didn't matter. So not having any guilt for cussing I didn't even think about it. But as I was building water lines for my job, something wasn't going right and I got a little mad and without anyone being close enough to hear me I used the f... word. Immediately this conviction (not guilt, I know what guilt feels like) came over me in such a way I looked up. And it was like God said you are not going to talk that way anymore. That's the last time it came out of my mouth.
There are many other things I could tell you about that I have experienced since then. In which some I have made mention about on this site.
So let me say this, it's not just a mind thing with God. Though He wants us to use our minds, the greater thing is that we use our hearts, the core of our beliefs. Because only when our selfish sin sickened beliefs and desires are turned towards God will we be able to be saved.
Another was to put it is: "until our desire to change is greater than our desire to remain the same, we will remain the same".
That is easy to see in the life of an alcoholic, or a drug addict. But it is also a requirement in getting saved.
Though you can't make those changes in yourself first, you simply have to come to the point that you are willing to if God will save you.
As for your question about my denomination. I am a Christian first and foremost. But though I belonged to no church when I was saved, I first went to a Methodist church and couldn't find what I was looking for, most likely because that wasn't the church God wanted me in. But in a few months I visited several other churches until I found the one I've been in since. It is an Independent Baptist church, and I've found that though Baptist don't have the exclusive corner stone on getting to Heaven. It is like going in first class. After all Jesus walked about 200 miles to get baptized by the first Baptist preacher there was.
Any questions feel free to ask!!!
Wow, this might take a while. I'll reply as soon as I can.
It feels mostly rhetorical to reply to this dude...
But it's good to kill some boredom right?
Curiosity and diplomacy... :)
@Chuck
Thank you for sharing.
Due to lack of time I'll try to keep this brief.
"Most of the time evolutionist ignore evidence that discredits there agendas."
As you say, sometimes information is discarded due to the nature of the information or the source of the information. Regarding the video of Kent Hovind, I would like to look at it. Is there a name of that particular video? I failed to find it on youtube.
To continue, this is where you lose me:
"So by the end of the video I realized that it was very probable that God exists."
The possible answers are not that black or white to me. I see two separate questions.
"Is evolution true or false" and "Is creationism true or false".
In a simplified hypothetical scenario, with a separate trial for these questions:
If evolution would get proven false, that would not make creationism automatically true.
If creationism would get proven false, that would not make evolution automatically true.
As long as either of these cases are proven false, it does not validate the other.
So, what I still don't get, is how does your conviction that evolution is false, lead you to the particular god of Christianity? And how does that suddenly validate creationism?
From my perspective, all the other options would also be possible, as in theories yet to be hatched or any of the creation myths from the religions throughout history, including Christianity.
The Pragmatic
I am also very busy and I will go through your post as I have time tomorrow.
The Pragmatic
Sorry I haven't responded back to you yet. I've been having trouble with my phone. I may have to get a replacement. I'll respond to your post shortly.
Take your time, no rush :)
I feel like he's just avoiding me now haha
...this is a new debate group on facebook...looking for atheists to join....thanks...:-) theist vs atheist: only the best arguments
https://www.facebook.com/groups/919660671425624/
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That is, quite literally, the definition of atheism. The reason people debate about evolution is because evolution goes against their beliefs! Of course there is evidence to back it up, otherwise it wouldn't be argued about in the first place. Even now, it should *not* be argued about! If Christianity is not taught in public schools and Science is, I think we know that science is true. Otherwise we wouldn't teach it to our kids.
@Chuck
Just checking in to see that you haven't forgotten.
The Pragmatic
No I haven't forgotten, the phone problem and temporary new duties at work have taken a lot of my time. I will answer you shortly. Sorry again.
No problemo, just checking.
I understand, such is life.
As for the Kent Hovind videos, I have a copy of them. They are not copyrighted so that anyone can make as many copies as they want. If you would like a copy, I can send them to you if you want. Free of charge. There are 7 DVD's. You don't have to give me your address if you don't want to. All you need is a P.O. box. How ever you want just contact me privately through this site.
Wow, thanks for the offer.
That seems like a bit too much to ask though, and a cumbersome format (DVD).
I just thought that if there is a name for the video or in this case series, I can probably find them. There is a lot of material already available, I just wanted to be sure I could find the same videos as those you referred to.
I don't have a problem sending them to you. If you want them in blue ray it would just take a little more time. But blue ray should have no problem playing DVD's. If the link that Nyarlathotep gave doesn't show the entire videos there could be a lot missing. The DVD's show everything without anything being cut out to maybe make the point being made to look foolish. Not saying that was done, but it's possible.
Thank you, but I don't think it will be necessary.
Now that I know it's a series of seven discs, I found several different sources.
However, I didn't expect it to be so vast. I thought it would be one video. I will have trouble finding the time to go through all of it. But I will make an attempt.
Congrats, you are a victim of pseudo-scientific garbage, man.
Just because someone has a DVD/video/webpage does not make them credible, peer review does.
Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson are not seen as respectable scientists because they talk on TV/Youtube, they are seen as respectable because what they say is subject to peer review and analysis.
Quacks like Hovind are shysters who want nothing but recognition and a gold throne built upon the ignorant.
Before I begin apologies for the very long post, congratulations if you read it all. Oh and Chuck I will let this post answer your other posts.
Did you notice. Chuck does not debate like a rational person. He rarely provides any sources for his outrageous claims and never a credible source.
I provided credible sources destroying creationist/id claims that c14 are in 65 million year old fossils. He just replies no but evolutionists claim c14 is in them. Lets just ignore that there is no such word as evolutionists much to the dismay of the science illiterate. But he has made an outrageous claim with no source.
Without a source how am I to know what he is refering to. There have been contaminated fossils but explanations were found using the scientific method. For instance. There have been fossils that have had the original fossilised bones replaced over time because of water run off containing minerals that do have c14.
Very early on in dating methods I am sure some mistakes were made. The thing is creationists and Id supporters love to use already discredited, completely outdated and redundant papers. It is a form of the argument from authority fallacy. 'These papers were written by real scientists not us lot (creationist and Id 'scientists') so you must believe.' Problem for them is any rational person with basic knowledge of science (thanks to the internet) can instantly fact check. Perhaps why Chuck avoids giving sources to back up his wild claims.
I am reminded of a creationist working at A prestigious university that found dna in a fossil dated millions of years old and without testing or even asking if it had happened before and been explained (it had) immediately published a paper claiming it to be under 6000 years old. Having embarrassed the university (they had to publish a retraction and apologise for it) he was dismissed so he started crying about coverups and claiming he was seeking legal aid for wrongful dismissal, coincidently he got a lot of money touring rabid creationist lecture circuits.
Source the thinking atheist:
In all seriousness I came across this today.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/...quisition/
So here is the rundown the source gives:
"What happens when you publish a peer-reviewed paper that states inconvenient facts against Darwinism? Better yet, photos that cast doubt on prevailing paradigms:
(Cannot link the photos sorry)
You get fired. At least that is what a researcher is alleging."
Of course people were going to respond to this event. PZ myers in radio podcast by
Minnesota Atheists
He said:
"The creationists are all on fire about this, and it’s been a big thing in the last couple of years I’ve been to a number of creation museums in Missouri and the one in Kentucky and so forth, and they all have big exhibits on this all throughout the world because there was something gooey find inside of a dinosaur bone.
It’s kind of nonsensical though, because Schweitzer’s observation was that when you dug deep into a bone, into the sheltered deep recesses of a fossilized bone, you could find these unusual structures, which when demineralized–I think that’s a very important point, is these were covered with all kinds of mineral deposits–when demineralized you’ve got something left that’s got kind of a spongy texture, and you look at it in the microscope, it looks vaguely like messotheial cells, cells that line blood vessels. Okay. Other people have said, well yeah, but they look more like bacterial biofilms anyway.
So it’s definitely biological material. It’s definitely soft. It’s buried in the bone. Now I don’t why they (creationists) think this is a big deal cause there’s nothing about taphonomy that says every single thing inside of a fossilized bone has to be replaced, it has to be completely replaced with some other mineral. And what these are are isolated bits that are very deep that… They’re carbon. What do you think happens to carbon over 70 million years? It doesn’t turn into lead or it doesn’t turn into calcium carbonate. It stays carbon.
So they found carbonaceous material that has a spongy texture. There’s nothing in that to contradict evolutionary theory. It’s an interesting phenomenon in fossil taphonomy. It says something interesting about preservation of tissues, but it’s not a strike against evolution."
Of course Mark responds with:
If you knew anything Dr. Meyers, about the microscopy of osteocytes – living osteocytes – (and we are not talking about epithelial cells) you would know that delicate ultrastructure – and I am talking fine filipodia approaching 500nm in width, decay WITHIN DAYS of the death of an organism. We microscopists have to use quick acting preservatives and process bone tissues immediately ON ICE to preserve the kinds of structures you can see on the Triceratops osteocytes in my paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...8113000020
The reason we creationists are very excited about this work – the reason you and Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer are backpedalling FAST on this issue now is because EVERYBODY knows this kind of ultrastructural preservation is MIRACULOUS. Osteocytes do not sit around with these kinds of structures for 10,000 years – let alone 68 million years.
Secondly – you should resist the temptation to comment about things you have not done your homework on. Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself because Mary Schweitzer showed in her 2013 paper that these osteocytes contain HISTONES inside their nucleoli. This is direct evidence that there is MIRACULOUS preservation of autogenous molecules inside these bones – and in my case, inside a highly vascular, mud embedded Triceratops horn (not a deeply buried heavily encased limb bone).
Thirdly, (and once again) Schweitzer has completely blown away the biofilm argument….Seriously – STOP TALKING PZ – you are showing folks how little you know about the work that has been done by Schweitzer.
Fourthly PZ – this is not something small and isolated found in one or two bones here or there – this is EVERYWHERE – soft autogenous tissues are EVERYWHERE in the fossil record – it is THE NORM and we at the Creation Research Society are going to PROVE it. We are going to test fossils from as many sites as possible and we are going to document what you are trying to cover up – the fossil graveyard left all over the earth as a result of the Flood of Noah happened very recently. Just sit back and watch the show.
By the way, I loved you in Ray Comfort’s new film, “Evolution vs God.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellect...s-critics/
Leaving out the liar ray comforts movie as we all know that he is the one to edit out his interviews at inconvenient partsDodgy, it seems that evolution is false because the paper in question is a paper called "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...8113000020
The reason it disproves evolution is because it supposedly debunks iron and biofilm from preserving the remains of the t-rex find of Mary. This would mean that the earth was 6,000, gays go to hell, and that Jesus died on a cross to forgive you, even though Yahweh can do that anyway because he can do what he wants.
The problem is where is the original source of this new article. Is it a real objection, no. However I do want to know if this was legitimate or a creationist going crazy and making a claim that he was fired for the paper when he wasn't.
Also if you ask me, It seems the whole T-rex "blood" thing is the last resort for creationist.
Very true! And excellent post!
It is amusing that anyone would use the Carbon-14 argument... It's only valid up to 60,000 years... so of course we don't use it for dinosaurs.... But as you said, there's no arguing with irrational people lol
I won't link directly to a torrent site, but this should get you very close (also since Hovind says people are free to distribute his videos, you shouldn't have any legal issues downloading):
http://www.google.com/search?q=piratebay+Kent+Hovind+-+Creationism
When you are done laughing at those (I've watched a couple hours worth, it is pretty funny shit); why not read Hovind's "doctoral" dissertation?
Again I won't link directly to the dissertation because of the domain it is on, but I'll get you very close:
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+Hovind%27s+doctoral+dissertation
And for bonus points, enjoy this picture of the "university" where Hovind got this "degree" (this one is on a much "milder" domain, so direct link):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/PatriotU_Crop.jpg
Anyway I read the entire disseration years ago, and here were some funny quotes from it:
---------------
I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but they have lived with man all through his six thousand year history.
Evolution is purely a religion.
To really understand the history of evolution, we have to understand the author. Satan is the master-mind behind this false doctrine.
In his pride, Satan decided he would exalt himself and take over the throne of God. This is where evolution started.
Satan, in the form of a serpent, brought the doctrine of evolution into the Garden of Eden.
Cain promoted the evolutionary doctrine that man can progress by his own efforts.
When the people left the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion of evolution with them.
In about 1895, a man named Yen Fu translated Thomas Huxley's book into Chinese. That was probably the turning point in China. It led the way for communism to take over so many of the oriental countries.
The Colorado River did not form the Grand Canyon.
Yet archaeology seems to tell us that just the opposite is true. It tells us that man has always been a monotheist and worshipped one God.
Hitler slaughtered the Jews and hated the blacks because he was an evolutionist.
Hitler was an evolutionist and it was the crazy doctrine of evolution that is fundamentally responsible for World War II.
We are turning out students that many other countries are able to beat in academic scores and academic knowledge because we waste so much class time and textbook time on this dumb idea of evolution.
I don't want to sound like a crackpot, but actually we don't know that the stars are billions of years away.
If the earth is millions of years old, why don't we have a fifty thousand year old Bristle Cone Pine tree someplace or a half a million year old?
I would like to ask the evolutionists if he has some kind of answer to the fact that if the earth is indeed million of years old, why is the oil still under such incredible pressure.
Pages