Topic awaiting preservation: Hey, the "Hobbits" arent actually hobbits (Page 2 of 4)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

He relies on the fact that people like you are going to get confused by the "deep and complicated" stuff, and then simply take his word because people don't want to understand the details anyway.Then once you buy his complicated theory (the one you sum up as deep and complicated, but don't really get...), you'll start beleiving the "simple stuff" and even beleiving that such "simple stuff" can't be explained any other way.

---

The point of me saying all that stuff was that despite the deep and complicated stuff that i dont understand and dont necesarily believe, (i will believe it when i fully understand it) i believe the simple things, because they make sense and cant be explained any other way (and no WS i never heard hovind say anything about dead clams, those were my own dumb thoughts)

so my point is that the less deep and complicated stuff he talks about in other portions of his videos are the really strong solid things.

theres this dude named carl who makes a living arguing with Dr Hovind. he mostly argues with him about the meteor and the polar ice caps and the water canopy issues. ive never seen him touch any of the simple rock solid facts Hovind presents in his videos.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

Kevin...if you want to clear your mind of bullshit, my best bet is. Go visit Museum of Natural History in NY (if you can)

then, if you do not attend private religious institution, try to pay close attention in Biology, Chemistry and Physics classes....

one of the biggest reason why those creationists "scientists" are not able to bring this sort of lecture to public schools or gain a recognition in scientific field, is simply becasue of enourmouse amount of bullshit they generate.

quote:

---

asptamer said:

actually Hovind claims that clams were found atop the mount Everest.

---

Clams were not found on Mt Everest. Fossils of clams were found on Mt. Everest. Lets step away from the smoke and mirrors for a minute and review Geology 101. These fossils are found in limestone, the stuff that forms as coral reefs build and itty-bitty calcium-carbonate coated sea creatures die. So, we have something that should be on the seafloor now 35,000 feet in the air. Mount Everest is in a tectonically active region of the world where mountains are still building. This is a process we can see and measure. The "clams" were once on the floor of the sea and brought to their height by the forces of two continental plates colliding, not deposited there high in the sky because of a flood.

asptamer - thank you for posting the summary. I haven't had the time to look at all these videos, but I did see some of them in college. This isn't about being harsh. You say you think this guy is on to something? What this man does is take the little pieces of science that could support his ideas and ignores or renounces everything else that is contrary. He sounds reasonable, and he has charisma. He paints a pretty picture but that is all it is.

Honestly, before wandering in the Asylum I didn't even knew some people believed in the creationist theory. What did these people learnt at school ? How can they refute the evidences of science ?

Like Ruski said, go in a museum, open a book of physic/chemistry and there's no way you can be fooled by those wanna be scientists. That "Dr Hovind" is obscurantist and uses faith and his charisma to make people believe in his theories.

Poi I think ...broadly speaking, American general public are more isolationist from other leading countries, less well-informed (edit: lets put it this way, not less informed, but more likely not very interested, or such) about science, and more likely to hold absurd beliefs (astrology, alien abduction, virgin birth, Uri Geller...), media is big business here. That's just generaly speaking...don't get me wrong stupid people are everywhere, including Europe....
Comparing it to Europe, European countries are small, the US is big. Europeans have had to cope with many different neighbors, languages, and cultures for centuries. It?s easier for Americans to think that their nation is the whole world. Another thing is television. Possibly the average American watches more than four hours of TV a day, the average European about an hour less I am not precise on this. Television sucks out your brain . In America fundamental christian organizations are very organized, they have their own TV shows, programs etc. etc. that constanly brainwash young people with silly superstitions. Yes that includes creationists scientists that want to push jewish literature into the science class.

I think that Governments in Europe tend to remain more secular comparing to America. Despite the strong seperation of church and state, Government uses religious motives to win elections. "National Prayer Day" "Gay marriege is immoral in Christian view"
pushing religious messages on money, pledge of allegiance etc. This easely brings together superstitious people with ideal mind.

There is much much more...but I am just tired.

(Edited by Ruski on 11-11-2004 21:17)

Kevin - please elaborate on some of these "simple things" that you don't think can be explained any other way.

I feel pretty confindent that "real" science can offer very good explanations...

quote:

---

actually Hovind claims that clams were found atop the mount Everest

---

Yes and many types of sea creature fossils have been found on many mountains. We know this. Many of these mountains used to be at the bottom of the sea, and through plate tectonics, when plates colided, they were pushed up into the mountains we know today.

Oh, no, that's not right. Mount Everest was covered by water by the great flood. That is a much easier theory to believe.

Or maybe clams used to be mountain dwelling land animals who migrated back to the sea.

Or the Yetis dug up the clams along the sea shore and brought them to the top of Mount Everst to eat them.

Lots of theories to go around.

Ok, Dr. Hovind, explain how the Niagra river carved its way back to the falls in thousands of years. Where was that flood then? Explain tens of thousands of years in layers of Coral growth.

You know, I can bend just about anything to "fit" my crackpot theories, as well. All I have to do, is "conviently" smudge out and forget various sections of Science - Geology, Oceanology, etc, etc. And if all that doesn't work, I call upon a Miracle, as DL so eloquently pointed out (though in other words) and it all works.

The guy is a kook. A crackpot. Hell, I will give anyone $10 million if they can prove that my people did not and can not contact our ancestors in a ritual trance. Now, if my people can really do this, then the christian god does not exist. They say that they can. Prove that they cannot.

Good luck.

Dr Hovind does explain in some detail about viagra falls. er, niagra falls. lol.

Also i think if you watched the full 50 hours of video seminars his ideas would begin to make more sense, youd see he doesnt conveniantly forget various sections of science. In some ways he does "call upon a miracle" but not before he gets to the science part. for instance, he explains how a worldwide flood is very able to do everything evolution explains.

i would write more but i gotta go. soo...later...

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

50 HOURS!

What about the hobbits?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

50 hours....no wonder you are already brainwashed.

Kevin, you have claimed you are not an expert regarding the matters that Hovind brings up. So please tell me how on earth you can tell whether or not pieces of science are not "conveniently left out"? I've seen some of his videos, back in college when I was taking classes in earth sciences. Even without a doctorate I could see gaping holes where things were conveniently left out or slyly brushed over. Go back and read a few of the links I posted. The explanations are not complicated, they don't require a degree to understand and they answer a few questions you presented a little while back.

quote:

---

Kevin G said:

for instance, he explains how a worldwide flood is very able to do everything
evolution explains.

---

In this explanation, does Hovind detail where exactly all of this water went to after the Flood? If it covered the entire world, it had to go somewhere. Or is this one of those convenient "miracles"?

omg omg... "clams can't drown?!?!?!?!?!?!" This is retarded... so I made a mistake by trying to make it sound funner. They didnt DROWN... they were BURRIED. Just like everything else was. Lots of mud slides, u name it. There are billions of closed clam fossils found everywhere - which means that they did not DIE and then DROWN, but rather were burried alive. Birds on the other hand, have feathers which make them floatable, so first the bird has to drown, then float for a few weeks (, and if it is not eaten by some surviving shark), only then sink and get burried. something like that.

and I am yet to see him prove creation... at this point I simply dont see how he will do it, but I will try to find out tonight : ) Showing that it is possible (notice, he didnt prove this either - he simply demonstrated such possibility, and a few reasons why it's more likely this way rather than in a longer term of millions of years) that grand canion was formed in a month is one thing, proving that God Created World in SIX DAYS LITERARY, and Man Did Not Evolve From Monkey is something absolutely different. And if he tries some of that "this was how the bible says it was, and try to prove me wrong" crap, I promise I stop watching his videos... hehe.


oh... and

quote:

---

He paints a pretty picture but that is all it is.
-Moon Dancer

---

yea... #1 reason why I cant wait to watch the next one is NOT a possibility that he might give a mathematical proof of creation, but rather the fact that he is a great speaker, and his theories make for a GREAT bed-time story... also it makes my imagination go wild, as he introduces totally new ideas and possibilities... its more entertaining than educational, and yet it teaches u things (interesting facts, fallacious arguments, ability to spot contradictions, etc hehe)

quote:

---

Yes and many types of sea creature fossils have been found on many mountains. We know this. Many of these mountains used to be at the bottom of the sea, and through plate tectonics, when plates colided, they were pushed up into the mountains we know today.

---

well, yea, its such common sense to u because we all learned it in school... I mean how else can clams get on top of a mountain, other than if this mountain were the bottom of a sea some million years ago (especially since we dont believe in no flood)

Im playing devil's (or hovind's) advocate here simply because many of common theories are also nothing more than theories, just that they were proposed not by some crazy catholic, but by a well-respected scientist... if he's a scientist doesnt mean he's always right, does it?

And by the way, Hovind also speculates how mountains could be created during the very same cataclysm.

Of course, we all learned in geology about always-erupting volcanos in the mid-ocean ridges, and how stuff moves around.... but still... its fun to indulge yourself in a wild fantasy once in a while Just keep in mind, that not everything in your textbook has a concrete proof. Many things are also theories.

Also, creationists miss a very important distinction of evolution... technically there are two theories, only second of which is proven.
theory1: everything evolved from goo in the ocean
theory2(the proven one): animals and plants undergo constant changes thus evolving into new species and getting better suited for their environments.

Creationists seem to dissimiss theory1, and along with it goes theory2, though very well, all the creatures could have been created in an instant, and then started naturally selecting each other (survival of the fittest etc)

Hovind gives a nice example (for purely comical purposes, of course). If you have a road (interstate 10?) from San Francisco to Miami, and youre standing in Miami and looking at a car going at 70MPH from the west, do you automatically assume that it was moving on that highway with that speed all that time? no you dont. its ridiculous to assume that. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MOVING like that, but then again, it might've come from the nearest town... Same could be the case with evolution. We see things changing, so we assume they were changing from goo... maybe, but we dont know that for a fact. there are no fossilized goos : )



(Edited by asptamer on 11-12-2004 06:39)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Explain tens of thousands of years in layers of Coral growth.

---

Hovind quotes some government study of Australian reef which was partially destoryed during WW2 (I'll look this up after Im done with the episode), and based on that study they concluded that the entire reef is less than 4400 years old.

[edit]
ok here we go... I took first site off google. here's some info from there:

quote:

---

The geological record indicates that the ancestors of modern coral reef ecosystems were formed at least 350 million years ago. The coral reefs existing today began growing as early as 50 million years ago. Most established coral reefs are between 5,000 and 10,000 years old. Although size sometimes indicates the age of a coral reef, this is not always true. Different species of coral grow at different rates, depending on water temperature, oxygen level, amount of turbulence, and availability of food.

---

Bold text implies that if those factors were different 4 thousand years ago, the corals would grow faster/slower
This applied to italized text implies that it is possible that the oldest corals are indeed less than 5k years (I assume they took current factors into account when estimating the age... although they did accomodate for error, so Im not sure here) , which in turn allows for a cataclysm which wiped out (buried perhaps) earlier corals.

Over all the first episode (Age of earth) gave a decent proof (if u will) of the flood (or something as devastating), but his only evidence for the age of Earth itself, or the universe in general is lack of evidence (only speculations) about the Oorte cloud (yet comets exist), and lack of dust on the moon (which is about age of the moon... but this is significant, as based on the dust accumulations moon is only a few thousand (6?) years old, yet modern science believes that it is about 5 billion years old. Well, if they're wrong there - what stops them from being wrong elsewhere when it comes to guessing age of planets)

pretty interesting, even if you refuse to believe it.



(Edited by asptamer on 11-12-2004 09:10)

quote:

---

Man Did Not Evolve From Monkey

---

This is a true statement. Evolution does not say that man evolved from monkeys. Evolution says that they both had a common ancestor.

asptamer, if you believe in the guy, there is little that we can do to persuade you to the contrary. If you ignore facts, and believe propaganda, that is your choice. Just doen't expect us to nod our heads with you.

quote:

---

Over all the first episode (Age of earth) gave a decent proof (if u will) of the flood (or something as devastating), but his only evidence for the age of Earth itself, or the universe in general is lack of evidence (only speculations) about the Oorte cloud (yet comets exist), and lack of dust on the moon (which is about age of the moon... but this is significant, as based on the dust accumulations moon is only a few thousand (6?) years old, yet modern science believes that it is about 5 billion years old. Well, if they're wrong there - what stops them from being wrong elsewhere when it comes to guessing age of planets)

---

Lack of dust on the moon? I think you need to watch the lunar films a bit closer. There is a lot of dust.

And I am not talking about the actual AGE of the coral!! I'm talking about the markings of growth in comparison with the sea level . Coral dies when it pokes out of the sea. And then when the sea rises again, the coral grows again. Thus, one can actually see these vast layers running through the coral beds over the ages as the seas rose and fell.

You know, this kind of stuff is getting really old.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

both had a common ancestor.

---

thats what I meant (really, I knew that), you dont have to take every word literary. I dont feel like checking my ravings for political (and science-book) correctness (or exactness). By saying "monkey" I tried to emphasise the man out of goo thing (by the way, where IS the goo now... all gone?).

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Lack of dust on the moon? I think you need to watch the lunar films a bit closer. There is a lot of dust.

---

....which is a tiny amount compared to projected miles of dust. The layer of dust on the moon is only an inch(or around there) thick. I did not mean "complete absense" by the word "lack" as it also means deficiency

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Thus, one can actually see these vast layers running through the coral beds over the ages as the seas rose and fell.

---

so? are you suggesting each mark is a year or a century? could've been a day for all you know... "whaters kept coming and going," but that's not the point... Im not saying the earth is 6000 years old, Hovind says it; Im saying that you dont know for sure it's 5 billion, or that the corals are 50 million (or whatever) just because some scientist says so. They use rough estimation based on current conditions, which are DEFINITELY different from what they were before (the same scientist will admit that)


The only reason this stuff is getting old is because you reject everything here because it has a "creationism" label attached to it which is by default - rubbish.
Science books are just as full of propoganda as Hovind's seminars... many 'facts' are based on assumptions and dubious sources.

I hate to sound brainwashed, but he does make more and more sense, as every single question is answered and most of them (a lot more than some) fit in nicely.... a lot nicer than the whole "humans from goo" and "something out of nothing" theory.

I dont post this to get a nod... I post it because I find it very interesting, and Im sure many other people might too... it's still your choice to read this or not read this, or to watch the videos or not watch the videos, or to go to anti-hovind website (which I will definitely check out when I get most of his ideas)... It's just that this is rather radical, and people tend to stay away from radical things (what herecy thou speaketh!!!). Shit who knows, maybe he'll be an equivalent of Kepler in 300 yeras or so (who knows?!)... just needs more substantial proof. Both sides use lack of evidence as their evidence in many instances... but that only means you can't accept one side and completely ignore the other.

I try to be objective.



(Edited by asptamer on 11-12-2004 10:55)

asptamer: Yet science is based on facts, from which some hypothesis are elaborated then confronted to reality and rejected if they don't match..

How can anybody question radioactive dating methods ( see (1), (2) and (3) ). Don't that good "Dr Hovind" and Kevin G ever made some experiences with radioactive isotopes of Cesium in school ? have they ever done some statistics in Maths ? There's no miracle in Science.



(Edited by poi on 11-12-2004 11:26)

quote:

---

are you suggesting each mark is a year or a century?

---

Oh good grief!

I didn't say that it represents ANY age, time, whatever! It factually marks different levels of the sea! That this is in literally meters of thick coral beds is interesting. If the Earth is only 6000 years old, then the Seas roase and fell so many times during that short time span, that it is ridiculous! There must be supporting evidence of this in the other Geological records that the seas rose and fell so many times so rapidly. But there isn't.

And Dr. Hovind doesn't even mention this, does he? Noooo, he surely doesn't. In fact, he has no explaination for this, whatsoever.

And that is how it goes with most crackpots like this. Ignore that which one can't explain, until one can somehow "fit" it in. If one can't discredit it, or just "convientely forget about it.

As I said - believe what you want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. In fact, I suggest you become a devout follower of Dr. Hovind. Rabid, in fact. Get it out of your system, then come back to reality.

WebShaman: Actually in many, if not most, geological layers, there is some kind of marks for each change of seasons. They are caused by the cyclic augmentation of temperature of the environment ( due to the seasons ) or the cyclic periods of reproducitons of animal species and thus increase of biological matter in the records ... well any change of the enviroment affect the composition of the sediments and tiny species ( such as coral ), and especially the cyclic changes. This is how scientists determines the composition of the atmosphere by examining the composition of bubbles of air in some carrots of ice digged at the poles, or how scientists determines how the magnetic pole has moved, or how scientist determine the changement of composition and color the geological layers, etc...

Poi, I know that. And that all supports the overwhelming evidence that in the last 6000 years, the sea levels did not rise and fall many, many times!! (note that I here mean a noticable variation, that it would result in mass coral die-off at once).

I am also aware that there are seasonal "markings" in coral, trees, sedimentary layers, ice, etc.

The best of the best is the speed of light. No getting around this one without a miracle. We normally would not have a sky full of stars, if the universe was just 6000 years old. Why? Because the light from the majority of stars wouldn't have reached us yet! They are namely further than 6000 light years away. Thus, most creationists that believe in a literal view of the bible resort to a "miracle" here. Or deny that stars are so far away. Or some other poppycock!

I really should start staying out of threads like this. My head hurts from all the stone walls.

WebShaman: I didn't actually meant to you ignored that, but to repeat to the creationists some unquestionable facts.

Your example about the stars and their light is brillant

quote:

---

I really should start staying out of threads like this. My head hurts from all the stone walls.

---

The Philosophy and other Silliness is a lair of wackos. Getting involved in a thread can harm health.

Yeah, it's brilliant until some kook who has spent 40 odd years straining his meager brain over it finally announces "Hey! The red shift and blue shift are all wrong, and therefore the stars are really within a 6000 light year radius!!!") and sounds convincing enough, and is charismatic enough, and produces thousands of videos "showing" how this is not true (without offering a shred of proof, just lots of "theory") comes along.

Then you have a horde of rabid believers assualting the boards all over the internet. Until the next "brilliant gem" of an idea comes out, that they can't refute.

And so it starts anew.

I find it interesting that asptamer, in his defense of Dr. Whatsit, lists, among others, two evidences:

quote:

---

...lack of dust on the moon (which is about age of the moon... but this is significant, as based on the dust accumulations moon is only a few thousand (6?) years old, yet modern science believes that it is about 5 billion years old.

AND

...by the way, where IS the goo now... all gone? [speaking of the stuff of which man evolved]

---

These are two evidences "Answering Genesis" specifically mentions as bunk - not to be used in argument.

You guys wanna get your stories straight before you come into the real world?

I know that some creationists believe the world was created ~6000 years ago with the appearance of great age. The dinosaur fossils, for example, were created in the ground and were never actually part of living creatures.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Wow, the FAQ of "Answering Genesis" has 27 arguments that should definitely not be used and 11 more that are inadvisable to use. That's a lot for such a solid theory.

Bugimus: really ? Damn, God would be quite mysterious/bored to do that. Why not simply creating the universe and stamping some parts with a "made by God" label so that nobody question his/her existence. Or why did he/she wasted his/her time putting fossils of dinosaurs in the ground instead of removing the sin in the heart of his/her creatures ?

Really

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

omg omg... "clams can't drown?!?!?!?!?!?!" This is retarded...

...thats what I meant (really, I knew that), you dont have to take every word literary. I dont feel like checking my ravings for political (and science-book) correctness (or exactness).

---

You must understand that by coming into a thread which is very science oriented and saying such things as 'clams drowned' or 'man evolved from monkeys' you are absolutely going to have it pointed out. Such statements speak of ignorance - if you know better, then state points in a way that shows it.

You are especially going to hear it when you talk about 'man evolving from monkeys', because that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks on both sides of the evolutionary question. Especialyl since what is talked about is primarily that men and apes - not monkeys - have a common ancestor. Apes and monkeys are quite different, and it is a very important difference, not just a simple matter of how things are worded.

It is extremely important to realize that such imprecise and casual treatements of scientific information are what allow kooks like 'dr.' hovind gain any sort of footing. If people don't understand the science involved, it's easier to manipulate things to look the way he wants.

It is also essential to understand that the majority of our important scientific theories are not simply ideas that some scientist thought up as a way to explain the natural world. WHile those type of people and theories are out there, they generally fall under the category that this Hovind do - kooks with an agenda trying to prove something rather than trying to find out what really happened. Our important theories are mostly based on centuries of scientific work performed by numerous people and corroborated by countless more.

It's not just 'some guy' who is respected and so we believe him... (except, again, in the case of kooks like hovind....)

kevin -

quote:

---

theres this dude named carl who makes a living arguing with Dr Hovind.

---

I may be jumping the gun, but I sincerely hope that by 'carl' you are not referring to Carl Sagan...? To suggest that he 'makes his living' arguing with Hovind would be akin to suggesting that horses exist for the purpose of swatting gnats with their tails....

Wow, you guys bring up some interesting stuff.

WS: about the stars, and their light taking a super long time to reach the earth. theres a typical young earth response to that, and you have to admit (if you have any kind of open mindedness) that they could have been made with their light already reaching the earth. they were made one way or the other, and theres no way to prove that they were made and then its light started traveling or if they were made with their light already reaching earth. both are perfectly valid.

we werent around when the stars were formed, so theres no way to tell exactly how it happened. but you certainly cant dismiss the possibility that they were made with their light already reaching the earth as crazy BS.

and about the crazy creationist view that fossils were created in the ground as they are isnt necesary. There are dinosaurs still living in a huge swamp in Africa today. and Pleseasaureses (i butchered the spelling but you know what im talkin about) have been sighted in lakes in the US and off the coast of the US and stuff. one guy even claims he was out swimming a couple miles out in the ocean from florida and he said a giant dinosaur-like creater ate 3 of his best friends.

DL, i was just messin around when i said he makes his living arguing with Hovind, and yes its Carl Sagan. I went to Carl's site once and read all of his arguments against Hovind. i thought, gee, a ton of this stuff makes so much sense. i wonder how Hovind will get outa this one. but Hovind came back with some very reasonable explanations for everything.

Carl mainly attacks the 'Hovind Theory' which is smart, because its one of Hovinds only theories. When i was watching his videos i never saw the part about the Hovind Theory, i only saw straight science, with the exception of the inference of a worldwide flood, but a lot of it doesnt involve the flood. i remember something about how when you have a spinning object, and then an object flies off it it will maintain the same spinning direction as the object it was thrown from (he used the example of a mary go round with kids flying off cause it got too fast) if such were true of the big bang theory (a subatomic particle gathered dust and began to spin and flung matter out into space which is now spinning galaxies and planets and such) then why are many galaxies and planets spinning the "wrong way" (he mentioned his opponents pointed out that its cause space is a vaccuum so the same principle doesnt apply but he showed that that isnt the case)

thats just something off the top of my head.

btw, too many of you assume that just cause someone is a creationist that they are kooks and dont use science and leave out stuff that would render our theories false. or "kooks with an agenda trying to prove something rather than find out what really happened" I really do beg to differ. Hovind repeats many times in his videos "im not trying to prove creation, im trying to expose lies in evolution" or something to that affect. Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are two of the best advocates for creation, and i assure you they are anything but "kooks with an agenda trying to prove something rather than find out what really happened"

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

quote:

---

they (the stars) could have been made with their light already reaching the earth.

---

quote:

---

why are many galaxies and planets spinning the "wrong way"

---

You never heard about the Universal Gravitation do you ?

You mentionned that you're 16yo. Therefore I suggest you to listen more carefully in class before buying the theories of a religious wacko. Notice that I don't blame you nor really say you're a kook, but that "Dr Hovind" seems to be a charimatic person and you obviously miss some scientific knowledge.



(Edited by poi on 11-12-2004 19:31)

Kevin, no one here has stated that all creationists are kooks. It is more than possible to believe evolution, geology and astronomy as it exists today and still believe in creation. The problem comes in when someone tries to bend, twist or break known laws of science to force a square peg to fit in a round hole. You have to remember the context of when the creation story was first told. The understanding of the world around them was very limited. They had no way of knowing that the stars were so far away. How could they? There was no way to measure it. They had no way of knowing exactly how long it took to create the earth. Measurement was very relative - a day did not necessarily mean "24 hours" as we know it. It was a span of time. Take someone who has never known measurement, or is unable to count past 10 and try to explain "billions" to them. You can't, they have no concept of it. So you simplify. It's the same thing with the whole 40 days/40 nights deal. There was nothing special or symbolic about the number 40 - it just meant "a long time". That seems to be something Hovind has forgotten about - context of the ancient mind.

The scary thing about Hovind is that he tries to simplify things that no longer need to be simplified. Daily we are gaining greater understanding of the universe. If one believes in god - it does not diminish faith in him to know how he created the universe outside of a literal interpretation of Genesis.

quote:

---

WS: about the stars, and their light taking a super long time to reach the earth. theres a typical young earth response to that, and you have to admit (if you have any kind of open mindedness) that they could have been made with their light already reaching the earth. they were made one way or the other, and theres no way to prove that they were made and then its light started traveling or if they were made with their light already reaching earth. both are perfectly valid.

---

It has NOTHING to do with open-mindedness. I'm sure you know how the nuclear process of stars produce light. Light travels at a certain speed. To assume that it was created already reaching the Earth is invoking the "miracle" rule - and that blows your whole theory apart, because with the "miracle" rule, ANYTHING is possible - even pink elephants that fly out of my ass. So no, it is NOT perfectly valid.

You have great points and i agree with you moondancer.

however, as many people (not here) have pointed out, Hovind doesnt use the Bible to prove science, he uses science to "prove"* the bible.


*id say he doesnt really prove it, but id say he uses science to demonstrate that the Bible account of creation fits perfectly with scientific ideas.

I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
-the late rodney dangerfield

quote:

---

btw, too many of you assume that just cause someone is a creationist that they are kooks and dont use science and leave out stuff that would render our theories false. or "kooks with an agenda trying to prove something rather than find out what really happened"

---

No - I'm not "assuming".

I am basing my statements on what I have observed, and what the people in this thread have posted back in regard to Hovind's videos/articles.

He can *say* all he wants about how sound his science is, and about how is not trying to prove creation.

But he's full of shit =)

Kevin G: Well, God is not put aside by Science. What is questionned is the Genesis. Actually that's normal for a book whose real author(s) remain unknown, that has certainly been partially rewritten several times, and written in a time where people thought the earth was the center of the universe. Even the theory of the Big Bang gives a huuuge place for God. So far there's no evidence of what was before the Big Bang, and everybody is free to put what it want there, call it : God, Big Crush, limit of a another universe nested in a Mutliverse, ...

WebShaman: "pink elephants that fly out of my ass" are perfectly valid after several smoke of peace pipe

The idea that world could have been created a short time ago to look as though it were ancient *is* a perfectly valid possibility. I think it is *highly* unlikely but not invalid.

poi, I would like to clarify that it is not Genesis itself that is questioned but rather a particular reading of the book that is questioned as far as this thread seems to be concerned.

quote:

---

Kevin G said:

but id say he uses science to demonstrate that the Bible account of creation
fits perfectly with scientific ideas

---

Fits perfectly? I would say creationism has a *long* way to go to be able to make such a statement.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

There is also the fact that Hovind is completely forgetting who really created Earth... Wasn't it a couple of little white mice trying to figure out how the answer 42 came to be?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You must understand that by coming into a thread which is very science oriented and saying such things as 'clams drowned' or 'man evolved from monkeys' you are absolutely going to have it pointed out. Such statements speak of ignorance - if you know better, then state points in a way that shows it.

---

you are partially right, but geee, I thougth this was philosophy and other silliness, both of which arent obviously "very science oriented," but thanks for letting me know that they are....

instead of looking for such little inaccuracies in what people write, some of you should read for the meaning, not spelling. If I (or someone else) write a 700 word post, and then next three posters respond with "clams cant drown" (DUhhhhhhhhhhh), it makes YOU look bad, and not me... Just like that "do you really think that they were LITERARY HOBBITS!?!?!" thing...

"never stop questioning" - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
even pink elephants that fly out of my ass.

---

Eughhh! Thank you for sharing, but that is a little more info than we needed to know.

quote:

---

asptamer said:

do you really think that they were LITERARY HOBBITS!?!?!

---

I thought I explained that on the previous page...

[EDIT]
Oh wait... my bad, I explained the chance appearance, Not their literary proclivities. There were many literary hobbits. What in earth did you expect them to read? The gobbleygook that elves write? No, they have their own library and everything. Bilbo had some good stories.
[/edit]


______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 11-13-2004 01:45)

What the title of the forum section says is irrelevant.
We are talking about what has turned into some very specific scientific issues - what bearing does the forum section have on the particular topic of discussion?

.

quote:

---

instead of looking for such little inaccuracies in what people write, some of you should read for the meaning, not spelling.

---

If we were talking about your spelling or grammar, or a slight vaguery of the scientific issues involved, you *might* have a point.

You said -

quote:

---

proving that God Created World in SIX DAYS LITERARY, and Man Did Not Evolve From Monkey is something absolutely different.

---

That says quite clearly that you hold the idea that men evolved from monkies to be scientific truth. Which is an extremely important error - not a simple spelling mistake. To imply otherwise speaks purely of ignorance.


As for the hobbits issue - the way he said it left things very open for question, and the things he has since stated he beleives only reinforces the need for such question.

As for clams drowning - I mena....c'mon. Say something stupid like that, and make it a significant point in your post, and guess what - people are going to address it.

You can claim all you want that you said it "to make it funner" (by the way - <-- that is a grammatical error, the like of which you are trying to portray your drowning clam and monkey-men statements as. notice it wasn't pointed out...until now....when needed to stress a point...), but you'll just have to forgive those of us who are skeptical about such a claim.

As for focusing on the 'meaning' of your posts - could you clarify what that has been? Your lack of understanding of the issues at hand has left that a little cloudy...

what issues do you speak of!?
I thought the issues at hand were credibility of Hovind's ramblings, and assumptions presented as scientific facts.
Speaking of which, all radioactive dating is based on assumption that there was a specific amount of radioactive element in the object that is being dated, at the time it was created (or am I wrong here as well?). If that assumption turns out to be fallacious - the dates are meaningless.
This topic is incredibly difficult to argue because most of the said things are such common sense to many of us today (after all, theyre in every science book), that it is hard to even think that they may be wrong...

Word FACT comes from latin 'facere' - to do, which implies that fact is something that has been done, or seen. Noone has seen the stars or planets form (any article suggesting that this far-away star is a young star with developing planets always comes with phrases s.a. 'is believed to be' or 'possibly,' and such other. When creationist uses such words- theyre dismissed as garbage, yet here it is taken as a scientific fact, or at least a very likely possibility or the flood happen, or one specie turn into two totally different ones. The only pieces of evidence of evolution that we have are micro changes in DNA, adaptation of animals, variations within the species based on environment, and maybe a few others that I cant think of right now... in other words, there is no factual evidence (aside from some fossiles, but once again it is proven that those DO NOT have to be millions of years old, as you cannot date them, and fossils have been known to form in much shorter periods of time) of amoeba changing into a human being.

Scientist say "it took millions of years" - thats your miracle effect... Anything is possible if you add millions of years to it. Some chemical soup can change into breating and reproducing animals some of which become intelligent enough to question their existance. So the question is: why is it that "millions of years" is a valid miracle, and yet 'universe being stretched out with light from distant stars being always visible' or 'alternate laws of physics (that allow light to travel faster than c) at the beginning of the universe's existance' is a ridiculous fairy-tale kind of miracle?

These some of the aspects of modern science that Hovind confronts, and if you look into the root of the problem, it does sound very questionalble.

I mean, if someone did have factual (indisputable) evidence that world is 20 billion years old (or earth is 5 billion), and all creatures evolved from chemical soup, and Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, then Hovind would be 250k poorer. And saying that 'he's simply ignoring the facts' is garbage, as he answers every single question he is presented with, not just the ones he thinks he can fit into the bible, as was mentioned here by someone. He cant prove that god created earth in 6days (as he wasnt there either), but what he does prove is that many notions of modern science DO NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE. Many of you fail to see that distinction.