PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     6 Day Creation was Possible
       just read...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Hammer_of_God

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I saw this at www.Drdino.com, by a Mr. Kent Hovind

hysics Show that Six Day Creation is Possible

Exodus 20:11 makes one of the most unbelievable statements of the Bible: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." It is hard to imagine a clearer statement defining how long God took in creating the entire universe. However, this simple statement has presented a seemingly impossible dilemma for Christians. On one hand, modern cosmology teaches that the universe has taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, if this clear and straightforward statement of the Bible can not be trusted to mean what it says, how can we know that any statement of the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says?

This was the dilemma which Dr. Russell Humphreys (physicist at Sandia National Laboratory) set out to solve as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe. Most people have been taught that the universe is the result of a gigantic explosion called the "Big Bang". During this explosive expansion, all the matter of the universe supposedly expanded outward from a tiny pinpoint. All modern cosmological models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are plugged into Einstein's general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.



Rather than start with these arbitrary assumptions (a universe having no center and no edge), Dr. Humphreys decided to take the most apparent meaning of the Biblical text and see what model of the universe developed. He reasoned that if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe. First, the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction. Second, the universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out"(1) Third, the universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center. If these three assumptions are plugged into the currently accepted formulas of physics, and the mathematical crank is turned, we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location.

Furthermore, the time dilation effect would be magnified tremendously as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones.

Albert Einstein rejected the idea that Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true."(2) How ironic that the most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein's work has shown to be entirely possible. A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book.(3)

Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12.
Joseph Schwartz, Einstein for Beginners, Pantheon Books, New York, p.31.
Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994.


-------
Life is either an adventure, or nothing...
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 7:25 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the future, you'd be better off NOT quoting Kent Hovind on anything.  He's the biggest fraud of any Creationist.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:43 PM on April 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you have basis for your attack on the character and integrity of this man?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:21 AM on April 18, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you did some reading up on him you would find him a fraud....for one, his so called degrees are from a degree mill, not a real school.   Also, his 250,000 dollar offer to anyone who can prove evolution is worded in such a way that it can never be claimed.  There's more but I don't feel like typing it
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 7:36 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, I do.

Kent Hovind recieved his 'degree' from a diploma mill just so he could claim the title 'Doctor'.  

Kent Hovind makes a 250,000 dollar offer when he DOESN'T HAVE 250,000 dollars.  The offer makes numerous errors showing Hovind's complete ignorance of science and evolution.   The wording of it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to prove ANYTHING.  You could not prove that gravity causes a dropped rock to fall.  You could not prove that your parents conceived you.  You could not prove ANYTHING within that offer.

Hovind continues to spit out anti-scientific information and bs.  He uses the pathetic arguments which other Creationists won't even touch.

Kent Hovind is a liar, a fraud, and an enemy of knowledge and science.  To cite him as a resource is insane.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:45 PM on April 18, 2003 | IP
Pikeman85

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kent Hovind is a modern day Eusebius.


-------
Promoting Freethought all over... I am the Fire. I am the Dechristianizer
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

       The offer is perfectly impossible to recieve. Reason that the $250,000 offer cannot be recieved? It is because this existence was brought about by Craetion.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:49 AM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

False, the offer is impossible to recieve because of how it's set up.

First, Mr. Hovind chooses his 'council'.   The council could be all evangelical young-Earth Creationists.  Mr. Hovind will not release details about the people in the group because he knows it is so blatantly biased.

Second, Mr. Hovind gets to dismiss anything he recieves on a purely subjective basis.  

Third, Mr. Hovind uses completely false definitions and clumps together cosmology and abiogenesis under the word evolution, forcing one to basically prove all the major sciences at once.

Fourth, Mr. Hovind requires that you show that NO OTHER METHOD is even possible other than evolution.  This is an absurd standard.  It's like telling a prosecutor that they have to find an alibi for every other person on Earth to make sure there couldn't possibly be another person who committed the crime.

Fifth, Mr. Hovind does not HAVE $250,000, so he has no right to offer it.

Finally, Mr. Hovind has been asked to prove ANY event using the criteria of his offer.   He has FAILED to do so.

In conclusion, Kent Hovind is a complete fraud who uses his phony offer to preach nonsense.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:58 AM on May 4, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a barrage to put poor Kent Hovind down!
A ridiculous Ph.D. ! If he would have a respectable one his position would be "scienctifically" acceptable would not it? But
of course if somebody does not have a Ph.D. then forget what he/she says. Do not worry about the arguments, logic watch his/her "credentials" right? If that one has a Nobel prize you know nothing can explode because he/she says it with true "credentials"!
B.T.W. If the Creator of the universe exists he definitely does not have a doctorate of any discipline not to mention a Nobel prize. What
a regrettable situation is not it?


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:02 AM on May 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gabor, you're missing the point.

It's not that people need to have a degree to have credibility.   It's that Mr. Hovind went to a diploma mill to buy a degree so he can think that he does have credibility.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:21 PM on May 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You guys are rediculus!! Arguing about whether Mr.Hovand is a good source or not. You should be arguing about the evidence for six day creation. Does't matter if he got his degree at a mill he still wins debates and knows a lot of good science whether you agree or not. He does hold a pretty good argument and have good sorces.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:22 AM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 12:22 AM on May 27, 2003 :
You should be arguing about the evidence for six day creation.


But there is none. :-)



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:43 AM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doesn't make any difference whether there is evidence or not (i think there is) but you guys are arguig over the validity of Kent hovand rather than what Kent hovand said.


-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:05 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The original post made reference to the $250k offer.   It's completely on-topic and fair to show that his offer is a fraud.

Does't matter if he got his degree at a mill he still wins debates

Please cite one written debate Kent Hovind has won (or even been a part of).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:24 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know where to find any written debates but I know he debates in colleges with professors all over the country. I know it is possible to get tapes of these but I'm not sure where. I have friends (with money so they were able to travel) who have been to his debates and talked about how he won.


-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 01:56 AM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You won't find any written debates because Creationists do not enter them.

Why?
You can't hold a written debate in a Church.
You can't bring all your people in so the audience is biased.
You actually have to provide references and sources in a written debate.

Creationists 'win' oral debates because they tend to be charismatic speakers while scientists come off as boring, know-it-alls.  They also make dozens of mistakes, which the scientist can't possibly correct all of in a limited time span.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:51 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I made a brief Google search of this Dr. Humphries and could not find a single non-creationist reference to him. The Sandia National Laboratories website does not mention him once (I didn't stay there too long so maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong)

Also, of all the sites that did speak of the good doctor, not one gives any details of the actual mathematics or physics which he applies to come up with these results, except for the three fairly ridiculous precepts mentioned in the OP.

Evidence gathered by observing redshifts in far off astronomical bodies indicates that the universe looks the same no matter where it is observed from. Therefore the concept of center or edge is fairly ridiculous.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:21 AM on June 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how did the biblical creationist get ahold of relativity. put that down you might learn something.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:37 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Meatros

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hovind is a liar, and his 'evidence' is laughable-it only fools the ignorant.

It's interesting how AiG *even* disagrees with his absurd ideas.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 08:27 AM on July 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, we've pretty much discredited this Hovind guy, but here's the nail in the coffin.  The theory of relativity basically says this:  You are object one, staying still.  Object two, travelling at half the speed of light zips past you wearing a watch.  You look at object two's watch and it looks to be ticking slower than yours.  Since speed is completely relative in space, object two also sees that object one's watch is ticking slower than his.  So say God is object one, and the universe that he's creating, travelling in all directions at the speed of light is object two.  Time, as measured by God, would seem to be travelling MUCH faster than the quickly expanding universe.  Basically, this guy got it backwards.  In the time it takes for six days to pass at the center of the universe, to the quickly expanding edge of the universe, it would have seemed as if no time passed at all.

Now I've disproved what he said, but even then: what was he trying to prove?  How far the universe could expand in six days, travelling at the speed of light?  All this relativity stuff doesn't even matter.  If something shoots out from a point and moves at the speed of light in a straight line for one year, that distance is called a light-year.  That time and distance are absolute measurements.
---
John R.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:19 AM on July 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, the way I see it. All I ever here about kent Hovind is hersay. No one hear can prove anything that would stand up in a court of law. If so, why hasn't anyone sued him already. Defrauding is a serious crime and to actually take someone to court on this, you have to have factual evidence. Theories don't work in a court of law. Not even if they have a working mechism. So unless you have factual evidence I suggest you quit quoting what other people and other websites are saying. From what I here, there fixin to be an investation by the Federal Trade Commision. I also here that all these web sites that are saying these things, are fixin to pay some heavy fines. OEC heads are gonna roll.
Case your wondering, AIG is OEC and that's why they attack Kent Hovind. OEC always attacks YEC. Christian attacking christians? Sounds Godly don't it. But then again you don't see this going on, on an YEC site. And who is more Christ like? Every OEC site I go to does the same thing and use the same tactics as evolutionists do.
I'm currently putting up a web site on YEC. And I'm gonna expose OEC for who they really are. In case someone does not know: OEC-old earth creation, YEC-young earth creation
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:50 AM on August 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing that needs to be set straight is that science is flawed from the very start.

Lee Chestnut wrote a book called the atom speaks “consider the dilemma of the nuclear physicist  when he looks in utter amazement at the pattern he has drawn of the oxygen nucleus, for here are 8 positively charged protons closely associated in the confines of this nucleus , and 8 neutrons with no charge, earlier in time physicists had discovered that like charges of electricity or magnetism repel each other, and opposites attract. “golems law” -like particles repel each other”

Scientists begin wondering what's wrong, what holds the nucleus together, why don’t atoms fly apart, in the 1920’s they successfully split an atom and discovered the amazing force which held the atom together.

One of the physicists who wrote the big bang theory said this “ the fact that we live in a world that practically every object is a potential nuclear explosion without being blown to bits.

Carl Dero a physicist  writes at the bell laboratories, “You grasp what this implies, it implies that all the massive nuclei have no right to be alive at all, indeed they never should have been created, and if created they should have blown up instantly, yet here they all are some flexible inhibition is holding them relentlessly together . There is no reason for it. except. Colossians 1:17
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:04 PM on October 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Man, you guys totaly went off topic...good job...meh...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:52 PM on October 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AiG not YEC???

Quoting Ken Ham:

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known [b[primarily[/b] as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.


They attack Hovind because he is an embarassment.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:43 AM on October 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course evolutionists want to discredit Kent Hovind because he disproves there beliefs and that herts, doesn't it? But as for myself I don't care if Kent Hovind was a bum off the street as far as what he says he is a genious.
It doesn't matter how messed up his 250,000 offer is because it is physically impossable to prove Evoltion anyway, it is wrong and has been proven to be wrong numerous times. As of now I have neither seen or herd of anything proving evolution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:30 PM on November 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course evolutionists want to discredit Kent Hovind because he disproves there beliefs and that herts, doesn't it? But as for myself I don't care if Kent Hovind was a bum off the street as far as what he says he is a genious.
It doesn't matter how messed up his 250,000 offer is because it is physically impossable to prove Evoltion anyway, it is wrong and has been proven to be wrong numerous times. As of now I have neither seen or herd of anything proving evolution.


Are you a troll deliberately trying to show creationists as uneducated idiots?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:43 AM on November 12, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh Im sorry I didn't realize I was explaing this to a 5 year old. It is simple, I was saying that going to school doesn't make your IQ. Someone who has no school eduaction could easily be smarter then someone who did. If Kent Hovind didn't go to school once in his life I would still consider him a genous by his knowledge.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:05 PM on November 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

every time I read a debate like this something very subtle goes on. The debate is always presented as being: Creationists vs Scientists.
See what I mean? It may as well say Fools vs Genious' because it's worded in such a way as to make Creationists look like non-scientists, while everyone else is unbiased and infallible. The fact is that there are many extremely well educated Professors who believe in creation. Really, if we are honest, we all come into a debate like this with a philosophical bias one way or the other and will deliberately accept or reject perfectly good evidence to back up our pre-existing opinion.
Now I plan on rambling. Here is a theory which came to me recently, and luckily I don't know enough about space-time to reject it yet:

Imagine time as being like water held behind a damn (future), seeping through the damn (the present) and forming a river (the past). Now, of course we will recognise that the only thing giving identity to the 'past' and 'future' is the present. At the beginning of time, there was so much water/future held in front of the damn/present that the pressure was unbelievable, causing the water to rush through the damn at unbelievable speed and density (maybe instead of the serial manner of the passage of time experienced nowaday, perhaps it was in parallel, meaning that several moments could pass at once) = time travelled very very quickly. But as more and more water passes through the damn, the flow and pressure reduces, meaning that time travels less quickly. This may explain why 'in the beginning', the period of what should have been billions of years, passed in simply 6 days. Of course, this is all conjecture and the evidence will probably never be found/accepted. It also depends on their being a finite amount of time, in order for there to be a difference in pressure and speed of flow.

Thanks
Me
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:17 AM on February 3, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"every time I read a debate like this something very subtle goes on. The debate is always presented as being: Creationists vs Scientists."

That's because there are no scientists doing any real research on creationism.  Creationism was falsified over 200 years ago.  It is considered a crackpot belief, so no real scientists would work on something so thouroughly disproven.

"may as well say Fools vs Genious' because it's worded in such a way as to make Creationists look like non-scientists, while everyone else is unbiased and infallible. "

While no one is completely unbiased and infallible, the scientific method strives to be just that.  Science goes where the facts lead.
Creationists claim they already know the "truth" and try desperately to shoehorn evidence into their already established conclusion.  How many times have I heard how the Earth's weakening magnetic field, or the shrinking sun, or the amount of moondust, or Saturn's rings means the Earth just can't be billions of years old.  Or how radiometric dating is flawed.  Or even out right lies like there are no transitional fossils, or all fossils are hoaxes...The dumb arguements many creationists use doesn't paint a picture of intellectual honesty.

"The fact is that there are many extremely well educated Professors who believe in creation."

If your talking about Professors of the life sciences, the ones who really do the research and study life on the Earth, there isn't that many who believe in traditional creationism.  National polls continuously show that something like 99.8% of these scientists accept the Theory of Evolution.  And there are virtually no scientists that accept creationism based soley on the evidence.

"Really, if we are honest, we all come into a debate like this with a philosophical bias one way or the other and will deliberately accept or reject perfectly good evidence to back up our pre-existing opinion."

Not true, at least where real scientists are concerned.  The first scientist who falsified the theory of evolution would instantly become world famous.  The theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of attempts to falsify it and it's still going strong.  It is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet.
So while everyone is biased to some degree, the scientific method tries to minimize this by ensuring that observations and experiments are repeatable, testable, so the sceptics can do their own research and see if their results agree.  

As to your example, you start off with what you believe the truth is and concoct a crazy story that fits with your belief.  What evidence do you have back it up?  What lead you to formulate this hypothesis?  And because you start out with a conclusion (a conclusion that the vast majority of scientists disagrees with) and craft a story to fit that conclusion, your story, just like creationism, can't be science.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:03 AM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do both sides, Creation and Evolution, seem to shun the other theory without providing any real science?  Like "Fools vs Genious"...

quote: "National polls continuously show that something like 99.8% of these scientists accept the Theory of Evolution."

Does that make it true?  Most scientists used to believe that big rocks fall faster than little rocks too.

quote: "The first scientist who falsified the theory of evolution would instantly become world famous.  The theory of evolution has stood up to 150 years of attempts to falsify it and it's still going strong."
Well, it depends on what kind of evolution we're talking about.  The big bang has some unexplained things in there (see thread big bang, beliefs) but since no one was around when it happened, it can't be proven right or wrong.  Life has never been observed to make itself from non-living matter.  We can't prove it happened, the evidence shows it shouldn't be able to, yet we can't prove that it did not happen.


quote: "It is the only theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet."

Are you sure? I think that Creation teaches that God made the diversity of life.  

(Edited by E-mc2 2/4/2004 at 12:23 PM).

(Edited by E-mc2 2/4/2004 at 12:24 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:19 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 7:45 PM on April 18, 2003 :
Kent Hovind is a liar, a fraud, and an enemy of knowledge and science.  To cite him as a resource is insane.


I didn't know which quote to reply to, there were so many attacks on this "Hovind".   Why do we insist on launching personal attaks on a man's charater without addressing what he says?  Instead of picking on the person, let us rather anylyze if his statements are reasonable and scientific.  And even if some of his statements were false, does that make him a... well, all the names he was called?





(Edited by E-mc2 2/4/2004 at 12:45 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:30 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Instead of picking on the person, let us rather anylyze if his statements are reasonable and scientific.


It's been done so exhaustively that even creationtist orginizations back awqay from him.

And even if some of his statements were false, does that make him a... well, all the names he was called?


Why not take the word of a Christian missionary regarding this?

I believe that my own correspondence with Dr. Hovind shows how unwise Christians have been to dismiss nonChristians’ unfavorable opinion of him.  We are instructed clearly by Apostle Paul to not allow such people to serve as pastors, elders, or deacons; a reasonable person would conclude that we shouldn't permit them to serve in any other prominent position.  Those who have encouraged Dr. Hovind bear much responsibility for what he has become, and for Christians becoming objects of scorn among the scientifically educated.An Evangelist Confronts Hovind
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:14 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so that is a legitamite excuse for calling names, etc.?  I mean, he's not as bad as Hitler, right?  And again, I would like to see which facts Hovind has got wrong.  I understand that his attitude is sometimes lofty, but his facts are usually right.  I encourage you to get one of his articles (of your choice)  and we will pick it apart.  Lets not pick on the guy, lets pick apart what he says.  Instead of going by "what people say" lets do the research ourselves, deal?

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 8:19 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)

Care to do the math?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:46 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, you partially win, I am too lazy to do the math right now.  However, This isn't one of Kent Hovind's claims.  The article you were reffering to was compiled from many different sources, he did not come up with this.  

It says
The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution. (3, p. 25; 7)


Notice it said ", p. 25; 7" and if you look on the bottom, it means "page 25 and 27 of the book: Huse, Scott M. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.

Is this the best evidence we can find that Hovind is a fraud?  Something he didn't even say?  In that article, Hovind had compiled many quotes from various books.
If only one of these quotes is true, evolution takes a hit, right?

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 10:10 PM on February 4, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So just repeating false claims is OK???

Does he have anything original?

If only one of these quotes is true, evolution takes a hit, right?


Evolution is the explanation of biodiversity, what possible effect on that would backwards spinning planets have??
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:48 AM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, you seem to have dodged my original question.  If he had some wrong claims, we can call him all kinds of trash right?  My philosophy is to listen to each person criticaly and see what you can learn.  If 75% of what someone says is wrong, learn from the other 25%.  (Hovind isn't as bad as that, but you get the idea).

Evolution is the explanation of biodiversity, what possible effect on that would backwards spinning planets have??


Wait just a minute, I haven't mentioned anything about biodiversity.  Thats another good topic to discuss, but I didn't bring that up.  The only thing I brought up under this  topic was why all the fuss over Hovind?

 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 12:19 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If only one of these quotes is true, evolution takes a hit, right?


You didn't bring up WHAT?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:34 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I didn't define the word.  I still didn't mention biodiversity.  However, if you examine the context, it will be quite clear that I didn't even mean biodiversity.  We were only dicussing Hovind you know, a rather dumb topic (to discuss the character of a person in a Creation/Evolution forum.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 1:08 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reading the context makes it clear that getting your material from Hovind.  Which puts you in an extemely poor position to advance any arguments on issues of science. A point which should be obvious from how other creationists and Christians regard him.

Maintaining Creationist Integrity : A response to Kent Hovind


When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovind’s Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.

In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.

Before responding to specifics, it may be worth pointing out the obvious: If these arguments don’t convince fellow creationists, why would any creationist think they are going to convince evolutionists? And it would be worth revisiting our articles hyperlinked above for our motivation in compiling these dubious arguments.

Our purpose is to encourage God’s people to avoid fallacious arguments and incorrect information that could become a stumbling block to those who have the background to understand the material. (By the way, AiG has met with Kent Hovind in the past to discuss many of the items below, including the fraudulent claims of Ron Wyatt.)

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:52 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have gotten noo material from Hovind so far.  And you are once again displaying prejudice.  If I got a quote from Hovind you would say it was false.  However, if I got the quote from Stephen J. Gould you would believe it right?  Disregarding something because of who it cam from is , well very poor logic, and downright stupid.
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 3:02 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Does that make it true?  Most scientists used to believe that big rocks fall faster than little rocks too."

They were scientists who didn't use the scientific method.  And that wasn't the point of my remark.  The previous poster had said that there are a number of educated scientists who believe in creation.  That is untrue, there are a tiny few who believe in creationism and none of them base that belief on the evidence.

"Well, it depends on what kind of evolution we're talking about."

I thought we were talking about the Theory of Evolution?  The Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.  How life first formed has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.

"The big bang has some unexplained things in there (see thread big bang, beliefs) but since no one was around when it happened, it can't be proven right or wrong."

Yes the Big Bang does have some unexplained things, but just because we weren't there to observe it doesn't mean we can't understand it.  We observe the data that still remains and the more we observe, the better our understanding will be.  And the word "prove" has no place in science.

"Life has never been observed to make itself from non-living matter.  We can't prove it happened, the evidence shows it shouldn't be able to, yet we can't prove that it did not happen."

No we have not yet seen life form from non living matter, but that might change.  Strange things are going on around deep sea hydrothermal vents.  But we have seen complex organic molecules form, so it seems that life from non life is very possible.

"Are you sure? I think that Creation teaches that God made the diversity of life. "

You're right!  I should have said "the only scientific theory"  that explains the diversity of life on the planet.  Of course many religious groups have superstitious myths about how the world was formed, Christianity is no different.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:12 PM on February 5, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think about this there are thosands of fossil evidence supporting evolution and no fossil evidence of adam and eve.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 8:43 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The previous poster had said that there are a number of educated scientists who believe in creation.  That is untrue, there are a tiny few who believe in creationism and none of them base that belief on the evidence.


What?  Please show me anything the evolution theory has done for us.  The inventors of most of the technology we see today is from Creationists.  (computers, light bulbs, vaccines, even the recent MRI machine.)


I thought we were talking about the Theory of Evolution?  The Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.  How life first formed has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.



You're right, and it will never explain any more, much to Darwin's frustration.
And by the way, you must address this.  How do you know where to start?   Lets say I asked you about where a cat came from.  Well, you would say it same from a bird or whatever was before it in the chain.  Now, where did that come from?  Well, I guess the reptiles, is that where we stop?  No, that wouldn't be the ultimate origin.  So where DO we stop?  The origin of life is unavoidable.  And if it isn't called the theory of evolution, what is it called?  I haven't heard of any new ones....

And the word "prove" has no place in science.


Excuse me?  Does that mean Hensel and Grettel is science since we don't have to prove that it happened?

No we have not yet seen life form from non living matter, but that might change.  Strange things are going on around deep sea hydrothermal vents.  But we have seen complex organic molecules form, so it seems that life from non life is very possible.


So you call that science?  Even scientists can't make life in the labratory, and they have intelligence on their side.  And do we even know what life is?  We know when something is alive, but can you explain it?


I should have said "the only scientific theory"  that explains the diversity of life on the planet.


Wait a minute, what is science?  If, as you stated,   "And the word "prove" has no place in science"  That makes any theory scientific.  And if you do have to prove it to make it scientific, no theory is science.


Now, I'd like to ask you, as "Guest" has answered in another thread, where do you believe time, space and matter came from?  And where did the laws of the universe come from?  If you believe they came from nowhere, or that they were always there (somehow)
Thats nowhere near science.  But if you believe
some god did it, you are in the same boat with the people you quoted as "Of course many religious groups have superstitious myths about how the world was formed, Christianity is no different.










(Edited by E-mc2 2/6/2004 at 9:13 PM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:12 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think about this there are thosands of fossil evidence supporting evolution and no fossil evidence of adam and eve.


I'm sorry?  When we find a bone it the dirt, all we know is, it died. We don't know when it lived, we don't know if it had any kids.  It doesn't say "made by dinosaur in 60 million B.C."  So show me where the fossils support evolution?  And fossil evidence of Adam and Eve?  Thats ridiculous, please show me fossil evidence of Charles Darwin.  
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 9:23 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"What?  Please show me anything the evolution theory has done for us.  The inventors of most of the technology we see today is from Creationists.  (computers, light bulbs, vaccines, even the recent MRI machine.)"

What???  Modern medicine is based on evolutionary theory!  Vaccines?  They come directly from evolutionary theory!  Anitbiotics, evolutionary theory!  Nothing in biology makes sense except when seen through evolutionary theory.  Please, do a little research before you spout off again!

"You're right, and it will never explain any more, much to Darwin's frustration.
And by the way, you must address this.  How do you know where to start?   Lets say I asked you about where a cat came from.  Well, you would say it same from a bird or whatever was before it in the chain.  Now, where did that come from?  Well, I guess the reptiles, is that where we stop?  No, that wouldn't be the ultimate origin.  So where DO we stop?  The origin of life is unavoidable.  And if it isn't called the theory of evolution, what is it called?  I haven't heard of any new ones...."


Much to Darwin's frustration??  You really don't understand science do you?  Every theory has it's limits. The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the begining of life, simple as that, no matter how much you demand that it does.  If God poofed life into existance, that doesn't change the fact that life evolved, if life arrived here on a meteorite, it still evolved.  How life first formed is called abiogenesis.  Evolution started after the first life formed, since the theory of evolution only deals with how life changes and evolves, it would not apply before that.

"Excuse me?  Does that mean Hensel and Grettel is science since we don't have to prove that it happened?"

Sorry, in science nothing is ever "proved" 100%, nothing.  Everything is subject to continual revision based on new facts and observations.  That is the scientific methods greatest strength  it never claims it has found the truth.  Creationism already has it's answer, it's "truth".  Any facts that falsify it are ignored.  If you'll notice, it's still the THEORY of gravity, the Heliocentric THEORY, the Atomic THEORY, the Germ THEORY, none of them are completely proven, and yet they have been very useful to mankind.

"So you call that science?  Even scientists can't make life in the labratory, and they have intelligence on their side.  And do we even know what life is?  We know when something is alive, but can you explain it?"

Of course I call that science!  Something new and unexplored has been found.  Science will investigate it, create theories about it, test those theories, modify those theories, create new theories based on new evidence, that's exactly how science works!  Scientists can't make life in the lab yet, what will you say when they do, biochemists are close to doing that now.  Complex organic molecules are being created now.  As for a definition of life, well simply put, something that metabolizes and reproduces.

"Wait a minute, what is science?  If, as you stated,   "And the word "prove" has no place in science"  That makes any theory scientific.  And if you do have to prove it to make it scientific, no theory is science."

No, you don't understand a scientific theory at all.  A scientific theory is an explaination for observed evidence.  A scientific theory has a means to be falsified, it must state specific examples of how if can be shown wrong.  A scientific theory must make predictions that are later shown to be true.  So no, every crackpot idea that comes along is considered a scientific theory.  Let's look at evolution.  All the evidence we have so far supports it, the fossil record, DNA, nested hierarchies, endogenous retroviruses, biogeography, to name  a few...This evidence is best explained by the theory of evolution.  How would the theory of evolution be disproven?  Finding fossils out of place, say a human with a dinosaur, is one way it would be falsified.  What predictions did the theory of evolution make?  That more and more transitional fossils would be found, and yes, they have been.
Creationism was at one time a scientific theory, but about 200 years ago it was falsified.
How was it falsified, it was shown conclusively that the Earth was older than 6,000 years.  It was shown conclusively by the discovery of transitional fossils that organisms were not discretely created, they were related.  It was shown conclusively that the flood of Noah was just a myth.  

"where do you believe time, space and matter came from?  And where did the laws of the universe come from?  If you believe they came from nowhere, or that they were always there (somehow)
Thats nowhere near science.  But if you believe
some god did it, you are in the same boat with the people you quoted as "Of course many religious groups have superstitious myths about how the world was formed, Christianity is no different."


Not at all, you create a false choice.  I can say we don't know yet but are still investigating.  You use the old God of the Gaps arguement.  Thousands of years ago man didn't understand lightning, so they said it must be Zeus.  Hundreds of years ago man did not understand disease, so it must be demons.  Today man doesn't understand the origin of reality, you say it must be a magic god who miraculously poofed it into existance, I say, give us some more time, we'll figure it out.  And if you're really serious about learning more on this, do a little research, once again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean Goddidit!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:22 AM on February 7, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What???  Modern medicine is based on evolutionary theory!


Where?  We knew what chemicals to put together to make a Benadryl pill all because we saw that frogs turn to reptiles, right?
The theory has shown us this?  I I'll mention again, MRI machine, light bulb, computers, etc.

Evolution started after the first life formed, since the theory of evolution only deals with how life changes and evolves, it would not apply before that.


Ok, fine.  Whats the theory called that talks about what happened before this?  I've never heard of it.

If you'll notice, it's still the THEORY of gravity, the Heliocentric THEORY, the Atomic THEORY, the Germ THEORY, none of them are completely proven, and yet they have been very useful to mankind.


Yeah, lol, gravity has been useful, keeping us down here!  If you don't like the term "proof" lets use the word "science".  Observable, testable, and demonstratable at any time.
Evolution is not there.

Creationism already has it's answer, it's "truth".  Any facts that falsify it are ignored.


Care to provide any facts?

Of course I call that science!


Can you demonstrate it?

Creationism was at one time a scientific theory, but about 200 years ago it was falsified.
How was it falsified, it was shown conclusively that the Earth was older than 6,000 years.  It was shown conclusively by the discovery of transitional fossils that organisms were not discretely created, they were related.  It was shown conclusively that the flood of Noah was just a myth.


Where was Creation falsified?  Where was Noah's flood falsified?  You love to recite the above, but how about some facts?  

Not at all, you create a false choice.  I can say we don't know yet but are still investigating.


Are there any other choices?



 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 11:54 PM on February 7, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where was Noah's flood falsified?


You need to read some of the history of geology, especially of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick:
ADAM SEDGWICK

The Noachian flood was the dominant theory from 1700 to 1831, but there was no evidence that it had occured.

Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:10 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Where?  We knew what chemicals to put together to make a Benadryl pill all because we saw that frogs turn to reptiles, right?
The theory has shown us this?  I I'll mention again, MRI machine, light bulb, computers,  etc."


You like to build those strawman arguements, don't you.  You don't understand evolution in the least, so it can't be the basis for modern medicine.  From here:
evo-medicine

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the central tenet of modern biology. Darwinian medicine offers a new perspective on human health. Application of Darwin's ideas to the evolution of pathogenic organisms, and consideration of their coevolution with their human hosts, has given modern medicine new insights into why we get sick and the ways in which we heal. Traditional medicine has focused on the proximate causes of diseases and treatment for their symptoms. By considering human health and disease from an evolutionary perspective, modern medicine is gaining new insights into why diseases occur, and how the human body is adapted to respond to them. "

So yes, the theory of Evolution has been invaluable to modern medicine and modern biological studies.  MRI, light bulbs, computers, how are these evidence for creationism?  What do they have to do with creationism?  How do they disprove evolution?

"Ok, fine.  Whats the theory called that talks about what happened before this?  I've never heard of it."

As I said before, the formation of life from non life is called Abiogenesis.  It is still not a theory, not enough evidence.  But there is some evidence.  And again, the theory of evolution is completely seperate from abiogenesis.  Doesn't matter where the first life came from, after it was here, it evolved.

"Yeah, lol, gravity has been useful, keeping us down here!  If you don't like the term "proof" lets use the word "science".  Observable, testable, and demonstratable at any time.
Evolution is not there."


Why isn't the fossil record evidence for evoltuion?  Why aren't the thousands of clearly transitional fossils like Archeaoptyrex and Acanthostega evidence for evolution?  Why isn't genetic similarities evidence for the theory of evolution?
Why aren't nested hierarchies evidence for evolution?  Why aren't endogenous retroviral insertions evidence for evolution?  Why isn't biogeography evidence for evolution?  All these evidences overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution and no other theory.  Please explain to me how you falsify them!

"Care to provide any facts?"

Facts?  Fundamental creationists claim the universe was created by God in 6 days 6,000 years ago.  They make this claim not on any research or observations, but on the "truth" found in their interpretation of the Bible.  They claim all evidence that disproves this truth is wrong or misinterpreted.  

"Where was Creation falsified?  Where was Noah's flood falsified?  You love to recite the above, but how about some facts?"

Creationism was falsified over 200 years ago when Christian geologists realized that the Earth couldn't possibly be only 6,000 years old.  Pick up any modern text book on geology and you'll see why.  Mountains take 100's of thousands of years to form, the Grand canyon took millions of years to form, the number of giant meteor impacts could not possibly have occurred in only the last 6.000 years.

This quote is from the Geological Society of America:

"The Geological Society of America recognizes that the evolution of life stands as one of the central concepts of modern science. Research in numerous fields of science during the past two centuries has produced an increasingly detailed picture of how life has evolved on Earth.
The rock record is a treasure trove of fossils, and by 1841, eighteen years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, geologists had not only assembled much of the geologic time scale from physical relationships among bodies of rock, but they had also recognized that fossils document profound changes in life throughout Earth¹s history. Darwin showed that biological evolution provides an explanation for these changes. Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history, and biologists have continued to elucidate the process of evolution. Thus, our understanding of life¹s evolution has expanded through diverse kinds of research, much of it in fields unknown to Darwin such as genetics, biochemistry, and micropaleontology. In short, the concept of organic evolution has not only withstood the test of time — the ultimate test of any scientific construct — but it has been greatly enriched.
Misinterpreting the Bible's creation narratives as scientific statements, many creationists go so far as to attack the validity of geologic time — time that extends back billions of years. "Deep time" is the foundation of modern geology. It was actually well established, though not quantified, by geologists decades before Darwin published his ideas or most scientists came to accept evolution as the explanation for the history of life. Furthermore, thousands of geologists employing many new modes of research refined the geologic time scale during the Twentieth Century. Near the start of that century, the discovery of naturally occurring radioactive substances provided clocks for measuring actual ages for segments of the geologic record. Today, some billion-year-old rocks can be dated with a precision of less than a tenth of one percent. Moreover, modern geologists can identify particular environments where sediments that are now rocks accumulated hundreds of millions of years ago: margins of ancient oceans where tides rose and fell, for example, and valley floors across which rivers meandered back and forth, and ancient reefs that grew to thicknesses of hundreds of meters but were built by organisms that could not have grown faster than a few millimeters a year. By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life."



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:43 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
E-mc2

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, lets discuss one topic at a time.  You've mentioned mountains, fossils, grand canyon, archaeopteryx mountains, Noah's flood, etc.  I can explain each of these, but it would take quite a bit of posting for each one.  So please specify which topic you would like to discuss and we'll go with it.



(Edited by E-mc2 2/9/2004 at 12:14 AM).
 


Posts: 53 | Posted: 8:45 PM on February 8, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.