Topic awaiting preservation: Hey, the "Hobbits" arent actually hobbits

http://answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1108hobbit.asp

just really short guys with microcephaly.

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

(Edited by Kevin G on 11-08-2004 20:21)

well, what else can you excpect from answearsingenesis.org?

It'll be interesting to see what gibberish they then post when it gets confirmed that they (the "hobbits") are indeed a seperate strain of hominid.

WS: you say "when it gets confirmed" like you already know they are in fact real hobbits.

lets just wait and see if they really are hobbits or just short dudes with small brains.

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

quote:

---

like you already know they are in fact real hobbits.

---

Ok, this must be clarified.

Please, tell me you realize that nobody is suggesting these are *actually* "hobbits"??

.


Now, I will say that we certainly need more information and corroboration before we can say a whole lot about where these specimens do fit in.

But this article certainly offers nothing conclusive by any means - and what little they do present (and seem so adamant about) is pretty thin.

Kevin G. I in no way, shape, or form mean that the skeletal remains found are the remains of Hobbits. I also have in no way, shape or form have declared that anything about these finds are concret cemented facts.

If you got these impressions from my post, then I apologize, for that was not my intent.

What I said was that should the finds be confirmed by the coming DNA comparisons to be actual hominids, and also to be of various ages (instead of young), then I suspect that that web-site will just find another "theory" to explain it away. They are assuming that the Bible is correct, and so must fit (or attempt to fit) everything around it.

A true scientist does not do this - he/she first examines the evidence, and begins to put together theories to explain the evidence, not the other way around.

hehe well WS i only got that impression cause you said "when" not "if"

your description of a true scientist describes Dr. Kent Hovind. im sure at least a few of you have heard of him. hes a great creation scientist, and the way he does things is he doesnt come to everything with a "how can i fit this into the bible" view. he does keep the bible in mind, but he comes to objective conclusions about evidence he finds, then says, "hey, this just so happens to be exactly what the bible says"

he has a $250,000 challenge: anyone who can prove to him in a live debate that evolution is a fact gets $250,000. no one has won the money yet. id encourage some of you guys to try to prove him wrong, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable about evolution. he's actually converted some of the best evolutionist to firm creationists, which is pretty cool.

btw, Dr Hovind is very open to change any of his views if someone gives him credible evidence that evolution is fact. no ones given him any as of yet.

www.drdino.com oh, and theres a lot of stuff you would consider crap on that site, you gotta watch his seminar videos to see the good stuff.

wow, my post got a lil off topic. but hey, we can start a cool discussion on Dr Hovinds views if anyone wants.

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

Then it is settled, you shall be the fellowship of the ring.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

Heh.

quote:

---

he has a $250,000 challenge: anyone who can prove to him in a live debate that evolution is a fact gets $250,000. no one has won the money yet. id encourage some of you guys to try to prove him wrong, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable about evolution. he's actually converted some of the best evolutionist to firm creationists, which is pretty cool.

---

That is such an old tactic. I can offer someone billions, if they can prove my version of Evolution, as well, confident that no-one can. Please show me, WHAT definition of Evolution Mr. Hovind is using.

quote:

---

btw, Dr Hovind is very open to change any of his views if someone gives him credible evidence that evolution is fact. no ones given him any as of yet.

---

Again, it depends on the definition of Evolution being used. If he is denying that Evolution is a fact, then he is most probably using an odd definition of it. Either that, or no-one is taking him seriously.

More importantly - just because someone refuses to admit that something is fact doesn't make it any less so.

still waiting for an answer to my first quetion though....

quote:

---

wow, my post got a lil off topic.

quote:

---

wow what a surprise

---

but hey, we can start a cool discussion on Dr Hovinds views if anyone wants.

---

uh... sure... NOT!

BMF

They are too Hobbits... Whats happened is the place they were found was tectonically detatched from middle earth and that allowed it to be seen by the surface dwellers. Normally things are well divided. But sometimes the magma around the inner world crystallizes and shards are released to the surface. The time scale is different as well. Being encased in convectionous materials actually slows time.

So to us what seems like eons are actually just blinks of time. That is why this cretationist shard was allowed to be present for the last ten thousand years or so. Normally it would be the Wizzyrns responsibility to refold shards back into the fabric of the inner world, but with the current calamities and disagreements between orcs and elves, there were some other distractions.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

^ Hehe...

quote:

---

picked in The Gap Theory from Dr. Kent Hovind & Stephen Lawwell:

The gap theory comes wrapped in many different shapes and forms. There are as many variations of this theory as there are theologians to support it. Simply stated, the gap theory is the idea that a long period of time existed between God's initial creation in Genesis 1:1 when "God created the heaven and the earth" and Genesis 1:2 when the earth was "without form and void." Most gap theorists believe that prior to Genesis 1:2 the "first" earth was inhabited by angelic creatures, such as Lucifer, as well as the mysterious dinosaurs. A pre-Adamite race of men is also thought to have populated the earth as this time. Many gap theorists teach that the world existed in this manner for millions of years, if not billions. The gap's end is believed to have occurred when God, finding iniquity in Satan's heart, was compelled to destroy the earth with a flood and make it "without form, and void" (Genesis 1:2). God then proceeded to "re-create" the earth in six literal days as described in Genesis 1:3-31. The gap theory, also known as the "ruin-restoration" theory, is displayed for illustrative purposes in the time line below.

---

I see that the creationists do have a strong explanation about the dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures.

poi, for the record Dr Hovind is very much opposed to the gap theory. you guys should definately watch the seminar videos, they are easy to understand and have really good arguments.

but about hobbits, i know no ones saying they are actual hobbits, like from lotr. thats just the nickname. i hope we all knew this is what was meant. not real hobbits, but the other species that they call hobbits. meh, whatever. lol.

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

quote:

---

i hope we all knew this is what was meant. not real hobbits, but the other species that they call hobbits.

---

ROTFLMAO!!

Kevin G: I spent several minutes on the website of this wonderful Dr Hovind. Sorry I'd like to have the time to watch his videos, but I don't really. Anyway I headed to the download section of his website and am downloading the 2 seminars. Still the blurb below the 2nd video is amazing :

quote:

---

The Garden of Eden:

1. The Garden of Eden, part two of the seminar series, describes the earth as it was before the worldwide flood. Dr. Hovind explains in detail how it was possible for man to live over 900 years, for plants and animals to grow much larger than today, and for dinosaurs to thrive along with man

---

Whatever, I don't understand how someone relying to a religious book ( whose original author(s) remain unknown and which content has certainly been touched with the time ) could claim to be a scientist.



(Edited by poi on 11-09-2004 16:10)

quote:

---

The gap theory comes wrapped in many different shapes and forms.

---

My version of the Gap theory is that when my wife goes to the Gap, it costs me money.

^*Falls down laughing*

quote:

---

So to us what seems like eons are actually just blinks of time. That is why this cretationist shard was allowed to be present for the last ten thousand years or so. Normally it would be the Wizzyrns responsibility to refold shards back into the fabric of the inner world, but with the current calamities and disagreements between orcs and elves, there were some other distractions.

---

I totally agree with that, it makes a lot of sense, right on, man you're smart!
My theory also is that Conan really messed things up by killing off the giant snakes.

BMF

I'll be honest, I dont care enough to go look for the answer myself, but maybe Kevin G will be kind enough to supply a reply to my question:

What does good Dr Hovind (or creationists in general) say about the process of fossilizaiton? As the rest of the society believes (I just couldnt put myself to write 'knows'), this process takes millions of years, and mere 5-6 thousand is nowhere near enough. There must be a "logical" explanation...

ok ok I take it back. I do care, and I went and looked. heres what I found:
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/stone_bears.asp

Logical? Im not sure... heres what it reads:

quote:

---

Gradually, these deposits build up and coat the object with a crust of rock.

---

As we know, fossilization is not "coating" of an object, but rather replacement of tissue with minerals. They're talking about a completely different thing...

So please, if anyone will, find a better "explanation" of fossilization?



(Edited by asptamer on 11-10-2004 02:12)

i dont know a lot about fossilization. is it similar to petrification? cause i know petrification can occur rapidly.

also, how do people know how old fossils are? ive heard they date them by the geologic layer theyre found in, or by using carbon 14 dating.

in one of Dr Hovinds videos he points out something very interesting. some scientists carbon14 dated several different parts of the same dinosaur. like its skull, toe, tail, etc. every part of the dinosaur came up with a different age, each age being hundred of thousands of years apart. maybe its foot died a couple hundred thousand years after its head.

but as far as dating them by which geologic age theyre located in, you then have to ask how you know how old the geologic age is. a normal response is "by the fossils found in it"

so the fossils are dated by the layer, and the layer is dated by the fossil. its circular reasoning.

these geologic layers are supposed to be millions of years or sumpin. however trees have been found standing upright in the layers. is the bottom of the tree a billion years older than the top?

im not an expert here tho. Dr Hovind is, i highly recommend you check out his videos.

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

The carbon 14 isotope has a relatively short half-life (5700 years) in the spectrum of isotopes used in radiometric dating. Here is additional detail on carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating is accurate to about 60,000 years as stated in the source. If the "scientists" were using Carbon 14 as their dating marker, then it is no wonder they were getting crazy results. The last of the true dinosaurs died out something on the order of 65 million years ago or so. They were using a method of dating on something that was at minimum 1000 times older than the accuracy can account for. This is also not accounting for the intrusion of carbon isotopes during the fossilization process.

There are several ways something can be fossilized. Petrified wood is a specific type of fossil.

Using fossils to date rock beds is not circular logic. It is one tool of many used in the deduction of dating. There are lots of clues within rockbeds themselves that can tell their age. Using key fossils that are known to have only exist during a certain timespan only narrows the timeframe of a rockbed down.

And for the "trees have been found standing upright in the layers", this is a link describing just how such a thing can come to be. The trees that are being discussed in this article are around 10,000 years old. They were not knocked over when they were buried. You can see living examples of this also in the deserts of the world. Trees are buried by sand on a regular basis by shifting dunes. Some never emerge again.

Rather than seeing a discrepancy such as the 100,000 year death of a dinosaur as proof that 65 million years is far too old for a dinosaur, it would be much more productive to investigate the reason why the discrepancy occured in the first place. That is good science.

^Amen

quote:

---

Kevin G said:
in one of Dr Hovinds videos he points out something very interesting. some scientists carbon14 dated several different parts of the same dinosaur. like its skull, toe, tail, etc. every part of the dinosaur came up with a different age, each age being hundred of thousands of years apart. maybe its foot died a couple hundred thousand years after its head.

(...)

im not an expert here tho. Dr Hovind is, i highly recommend you check out his videos.

---

If "Dr Hovind" bases his theory on the carbon dating of a dinosaur you should quit calling an expert, right now. Damn, even a 13yo kid knows that C14 dating is viable for serveral half-life periods which means ~60,000 at maximum.

Ok, I'll try to watch "Dr Hovind"'s videos. I'm sure I'll have a good time.



(Edited by poi on 11-10-2004 10:33)

You can't carbon-14 date a fossil. A fossil is rock. Fossilazation is the "replacement of tissue with minerals" as asptamer conjectured.

When they carbon-14 date dinosaur (and other) bones, these are actual preserved bones, not fossils.

I watched Kent Hovind's second video "The Garden of Eden." Some of the information is really fascinating, and some of it even makes sense!!! But unfortunately, most of his evidence is "lack of evidence," things like "smithsonean did a great job at hiding all the evidence of creation;" and yet some other is total bull... At some point, when talking about humans living together with dinosaurs, they showed a drawing of a native american (perhaps a child) on a llama. I agree that there's resemblence between llamas and certain types of dinosaurs, but come on... trying to be serious here.

What was really fascinating (sci-fi like) is that Dr. Hovind believes (I never heard of any similar theory nor do I know if he used any sources other than the bible and his imagination to come up with it) that before the flood there were three layers of water: one below the earth, one on the earth, and one above the sky. The first and last broke down (or up) and caused the flood.

His another belief is that pre-flood earth was under twice as much atmospheric pressure (he uses an air bubble from an ancient amber formation as the source, gotta check about that), which allowed for accelerated growth and higher fertility of plants and animals (one of the examples here was a cherry-tomato tree grown in a hyperbaric chamber, as well as the chamber's miraculous healing powers)

Technically a 1 meter layer of water above the atmosphere could produce the extra 1atm of pressure and yet allow enough ultra-violet to get to earth for photosynthesis to occur, but how do you suspend so much water in the air?! clouds?? (he suggests it was in the form of ice... ice mist perhaps)? And then maybe some global cataclysm reduced the amount of water and... here comes life as we know it...

Like I said before, much of this sounds like science fiction to me, but its a bit scary because in a very fucked up way, some of it does make sense...

Great thing about Hovind's approach is that he does try to use modern science to support his theories, but it is sad that he insists on accepting the bible (old testament, the unedited version) literary, and that may not be the safest way to go.

quote:

---

much of this sounds like science fiction to me

---

How about just plain old fiction!

quote:

---

What was really fascinating (sci-fi like) is that Dr. Hovind believes (I never heard of any similar theory nor do I know if he used any sources other than the bible and his imagination to come up with it) that before the flood there were three layers of water: one below the earth, one on the earth, and one above the sky.

---

Fascinating? It's gobbledy-gook! What is fascinating to me, in a horrifying way, is that some people are drawn in enough by this sort of nonsense to actually beleive it!

Yep, there was an ocean above the sky, that God loved to swim in. But He so loved us all that he gave it up and gave it to us to use.

^Actually, it was his bathtub, and he pulled the plug one day...the rest is Bible history!

Nah guys, u're too harsh. This dude is onto something... he isnt disaproving evolution nor is he proving existence of God or validity of the new testament, but he does give a very coherent presentation of The Flood. Everything seems to fit into Genesis in his words, and it's really interesting, even though you think "bullshit!!!" at times. His main qualm with current version of science is the wording "millions or billions of years." He gives a decent explanation for how the Grand Canion et al could have been made in a very short time - days, months, years. Nothing in his presentation proves that the Earth was indeed Created (6 thousand years ago), but only the fact that there was a global flood. Well, no one really denies it, as it is documented in many writings and most cultures posess a version of it.

In the end the videos become sermons and that's a totally different discussion (freedom of religion?), but I think the seminars are indeed worthy of your attention... at least a very skeptical version of it :D

quote:

---

briggl said:

Fascinating? It's gobbledy-gook!

---

With respect, it *should* be fascinating because that was how ancient cultures in the Middle East viewed the world, more or less.

From Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs), I pointed out to White Hawk in a discussion about Genesis:

quote:

---

Now about the earth not being moved. This goes back to what I was talking about how all the cultures of southwestern asia understood the physical world. It was believed that the earth rested on an immense subterranean ocean. It was also believed that the heavens were fixed above the earth like a large inverted bowl. If you compare the creation stories of the Assyrians and Babylonians with that of Genesis, you will see this as common view of the physical world.

---

I'll just say once more, the problem is that creationists are forcing a literal read on text that will not have it. It really is a shame.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Science tends towards a receeding of the ice in the last ice age as the reason for the floods, not god emptying his bathtub. In fact, there has been a number of ice ages, and these type of floods. A big enough asteroid or comet strike in the ocean would produce a huge tidal wave. That might also account for a flood scenario.

Of course, the WHOLE earth was not covered with water during the flooding, as the ice melted from the last ice age. We can measure this, in the coral reefs (which, incidently, also serve as excellent time markers, as well - I don't see any explanation for them from creationists).

quote:

---

gmn17 said:

My theory also is that Conan really messed things up by killing off the giant snakes.

---

Oi Vey! Don't get me started on what that punk, Harry Potter, did to the cause of Basilisk Preservation!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Of course, the WHOLE earth was not covered with water

---

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

and since we got this started, I'll just tell u what the "Hovind theory" is about, since Im one of those few who was bored enough to actually watch the videos.

He believes it was a comet. As it is known that most comets are made up mostly of ice and dirt, this one was no exception, and somehow it broke up on its flight towards (or away from...) the Sun. Its fragments, aside from creating the rings around Neptune, Jupiter, Uranus (perhaps also Saturn), hit the innermost planets thus forming the mirriads of craters. Here he points out that this goes along with the fact that most of the craters on mercury and moon do not feature meteorites as the sources of impact. In other words, there's a hole, but no rock - as it melted away and evaporated.

Then he gets very technical, specifying that ice is easily submitted to static charge, and thus (somehow), due to Earth's magnetic field, the ice that was destined for Earth ended up on its poles. Falling out as -300F snow, it cought Mammoths which were later found frozen standing upright, with food still in their mouths (cause of death - suffocation). Mammoths by the way (all according to the videos, Im just a messenger here) were never exposed to cold weather before, which is evident from the fact that they lack the oil glands on the skin, and the palm leaves found frozen in polar regions. Before this cataclysm, Earth was a much warmer place without seasonal shifts, which were introduced when the ice caps fell onto the poles and thus 'threw the planet out of balance' causing it to wobble. Until then, polar regions were somewhat like tropics, with constant spring.

Two things happen next: Glacier forms, and the flood erupts. Naturally (no shit?!), the Earth's crust is broken, and the inner waters are let loose drowning the animals and people (latter became Oil) creating mass graves, which by itself is a strong indicator of a major cataclysm.

Later the waters subdue, and major geological features of Earth are formed.
Few inetesting notes: The order in which fossils are located in stone (birds on top, clams on the bottom) doesnt imply that clams evolved before birds, but rather that clams drowned before birds, as clams were already on the bottom, and birds floated for a bit. The layers are there because the dirt was settling in that way. Water was coming and going, and when theres moving water, there's separation of heavy and light particles, thus forming layers when it finally settles down. (He talks more than this about layers of course, as it gets more complicated in real life, and I dont remember the details)
Hovind names numerous accounts when petrification of wood and other things was known to occur in time span as short as 20-30 years, so the fossils we find now do not have be millions of years old.

---------

That's an hour of lecture in 3 paragraphs, boring stuff omited.
I guess if we wanna know for sure, we gotta dig deeper : )

asptamer: thanks for the summary. Hehe, looks like I'll have a really funny afternoon

quote:

---

doesnt imply that clams evolved before birds, but rather that clams drowned before birds

---

Clams can't drown. They live in water.

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-11-2004 12:22)

sure clams cant drown, but what if they were killed, then drowned? just a thought from my 16 year old brain.

anyway Hovind gets into some pretty deep crap, and i dont understand it all.

the videos you guys saw are the confusing ones...he has like 50 hours of video taken from seminars, and are very easy to understand. some of the 7 year olds could explain it.

when you get into that deep stuff it gets all confusing, but the simple stuff that cant be explained any other way, i think thats where his really good stuff is.
ive heard people say "i just cannot understand how anyone could possibly not believe evolution"

well after watching his videos i was thinking "i just cannot understand how anyone could possibly not believe creation"

(btw i never saw ay of the videos about the metor and polar ice caps and such)

i think if everyone saw Hovinds videos people would understand creation isnt as crazy as everyone thinks it is. i wouldnt expect people to change their views necesarilly, but you would realize that we have a lot of valid ideas.

again, i would really encourage everone to watch them, he has some DVD's available, and he gives permission to everyone to copy them and distribute them to anyone for free. cause he wants to get the word out.

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

quote:

---

sure clams cant drown, but what if they were killed, then drowned?

---

That is preposterous. First of all, they can't drown. Second, dead things can't drown, either.

quote:

---

but the simple stuff that cant be explained any other way

---

Like clams drowning?

Give me a break

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

^ that's right, WS - clams can't drown according to modern science, but if god tells clams to drown - then they drown.

Kevin - sorry to say - the more I read and the more I see form this guy, the crazier and less coherent it becomes. 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.

Bugimus - as far as it being how the ancient cultures saw the world....they saw a *whole* lot of things in the world that were very definately misperceptions.

it is fascinating to read the ancient perceptions in the context of them being ancient perceptions.

To read about them as "modern science" is truly frightening.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:
it is fascinating to read the ancient perceptions in the context of them being ancient perceptions.
To read about them as "modern science" is truly frightening.

---

I completely agree with this.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

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.

asptamer, I have a question for you.

If you don't understand the really "deep stuff" as you put it, i.e. the science that goes into puting a date on something, geological ages, etc, etc, etc - just who are you going to believe? One man (who is very religious and trying to "prove" the Bible), or a collection of men and women that have devoted their lives in the advancement of knowledge based on a logical, reliable, provable method (subject to peer review)?

Do you think that all those scientists have lied? Do you think that all that they have discovered, is based on fallicies?

Let's take the example of Albert Einstein (you do know about him right? Theory of Relativity?). He believed in God. However, you will not find mentioned anywhere in his Theory of Relativity that the light was "created" suddenly 6000 years ago (and everything else). Do you then think that Dr. Hovind is smarter than Albert Einstein?

Because all this is what you are arguing, what you are suggesting. You may not realize this, but basically it is a true statement. To accept Dr. Hovind's theories, one has to throw all of Science out the window. All the generations, lives, and knowledge built up over hundreds of years. would be null and void in one instance.

You are suggesting, that the same process that allowed the properties of thermal dynamics to be defined, gravity to be measured, and gave us electricity and nuclear energy are flawed, and not accurate tools to use. Because this same process has been used to develop methods of measuring the Date (age) of something.

That doesn't mean that such tools cannot be refined, or sometimes corrigated as we add more to our knowledge base. But the basic process, that which is the Scientific method, with peer review, has proved itself time and again as reliable.

Measured against Religion and belief as such a process, the scientific process wins hands down.

So when you say this

quote:

---

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.

---

, you are highly inaccurate.

If you wish to go into the realms of philosophy, now that is something different. We could spend lifetimes debating and discussing the various philosophical models, if you wish. Is reality really real? Are we but dreaming it's existance? Is there a dog?

Religious theories and stories, etc., are science also. When man (humankind) first arose in the depths of pre-hostory, they saw the stars, moon and sun in the sky; they saw fossils of sea creatures where they shouldn't be; they saw all of nature, in its calm and its fury, all around them; they saw fire occasionally. And they came up with theories about why these things were there and how they came to be. Naturally enough, not having the knowledge and tools that we have today, many of these theories depended on gods as the driving force behind everything. As it is today, back then there were some people who were more clever and/or smarter than the others around them. These people were the ones who came up with these ideas. Also back then, there were people who were more devious and power hungry than those around them. These people became the priests and bent these theories to their own purposes to allow them to control others. (As it is today, not all of these priests were "bad" people. Many of them wanted to help others.)

The many-god theories evolved into the one God theory which is still the prevalent "scientific" theory among many people today. The Bible, which represents one version of this theory, was written over many years, with stories that can give us guidance and support. But is was not written as "proof" that the theories are true, but rather as a culminiation of what was known at the time the stories were written.

However, the scientific method became more and more refined. The clever/smart people continued learning about the world around them, and some of the theories were refined as more facts were discovered. These people have developed science into the form that we know it today, with many theories that go against the stories in the Bible. Many of these people still believe in God, and still believe that He/She/It created all of this. BUT, not in seven days 6,000 years ago. Some may believe that, instead, God may have started the seed that allowed the world to develop into the world we know, and allowed us to grow into the people we have become, and this "experiment" by God is continuing. There are probably other ways that some of these people believe in God, I can only imagine.

The bottom line is that we should not let the development of science be stuck in theories that were in place 6,000 years ago. We need to grow and continue to learn about how and why things work and why they are the way they are.

For one example, instead of believing that a god or gods caused a flood that covered the entire earth all at one time and put clams on mountains for them to become fossilized, we should allow the thought of other ways that this could have happened.The plate tectonic theory is pretty well proven and measurable, and is nearly irrefutable. So what if that disagrees with a story in the Bible? This is the continuation of the search for knowledge that began when mankind first began to be able to think to the level of being able to wonder why, and try to come up with answers to these wonderings.

(Edited by briggl on 11-13-2004 15:42)

Thank you for that, briggl. Nice post.

Precisely. I have brought up that point myself in many of these discussions - what is looked at as religion today was the beginning of man's scientific ponderings. It never stopped evolving, but large groups of people dug their heels in and refused to accept that our understanding could move forward.

This is still a problem in the scientific community as well. There are inevitably people who want their current understanding to be "it", and do not want to retain flexibility - do not want to continue learning.

Back to Asptamer -

Suggesting that what we currently undestand as scientific truth (and yes, even though these things are often still called 'theories', they are based on established fact and measured observation, and corroborated by many people of many different religious/ethnic/other persuasions) might not necessarily be true is one thing - and is, in fact, a good thing. Science *must* continue to grow. That's what science is, that's what science does.

However, making this suggestion, and then offering nothing solid or real or verifiable as evidence in support of a biblical story is completely meaningless.

Nobody here is failing to make your distinction.

You are failing to make a viable argument for what you are trying to say.



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-13-2004 17:34)

^ And that is the poop.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

asptamer, I have a question for you.

If you don't understand the really "deep stuff" as you put it, i.e. the science that goes into puting a date on something, geological ages, etc, etc, etc - just who are you going to believe?

---

uhhh, I believe it was Kevin G who sais he doesnt understand the deep stuff... or I dont know where youre coming from. Much of what you said has nothing to do with what I posted or believe in (except the sicentist lie part, but that is not entirely true. I didnt suggest they lied, I asked why do we think they're right? they showed no proof. the proof they used does not really prove what they say...), maybe you should re-read the thread, or watch the videos yourself...

I never said I think the world was created 6000 years ago and god put man on earth... no... I might have said that due to lack of facts it could be possible (even though that might not be my own belief); but most of what I wrote dealt with the flood, not creation of the world. I spiced it up with some miracles that Hovind used (changing physical laws) just to show u that you cannot disapprove it. And if it is making less sense than 500 million year evolution, thats just because you heard it since you were little.

DL spoke of something solid or real or verifiable, and said that I dont give any of that. Well, neither does science... Or maybe I've been asleep in my biology/geology classes... if so, please, show me the light, what is the solid and real and verifiable proof of the following theories:

1)All life evolved from a chemical soup millions of years ago when the conditions were suitable for such change (this is free-swimming chemicals --->> living things).
2)Although we get huge errors while radio-dating things, we believe that things are 100s of millions years old, yet there is proof that most of those things could very well be younger than most people on earth.
(though I dont say they are indeed... just could be, but if they could be so young, their age can be anything. even 4000 years)

and please, dont start talking how there is no such theory because my wording is a little bit off... If its off - its accidental.
and before you give me solid and verifiable info to support the above beliefs (which is what I believe modern science stands for), heres what hovind thinks: 1) has no proof whatsoever - its religion. 2) fossils are known to form in 30-40 years.

I know WebShaman will try to say something like "how can you belive otherwise?!" Thats not what I said, I asked WHY does everyone else believe it. My trust in scientific stories (about the past) is heavily undermined. I wanna see where they're coming from, with all these ideas.

anyone read Velikovski?

oh, uh, about light

in bible it says god created light on day 1
then, unless it's referring to a different light,
he didn't create the sources of light until day 4

hint: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

theory: most evolutionists and creationists are

Well, technically this also works with Big Bang theory. The big bang itself is a big-ass explosion. If you could see it happen, you would probably be blinded by the amount of energy (light) that was released. Only after some time (billions of years, according to some theorists,) were there stars forming.

Here's something I thought of a long time ago:
If you were to create life, a bunch of living organisms - would you make a completely new design for every single specie? or would you first design the part (of DNA) which all organisms have in common - the essense of what it means to be alive; and then make modifications so that there is a lot of variation. Of course, as an intelligent programmer - you would allow your creation to modify itself, to change if the conditions become different.
What scientists did is they discovered that all living things, from bacteria to human, have similarities in their DNA sequence; so they assumed that former evolved into latter... There is no ground for such an assumption. If you think about it, it is almost equivalent to saying "since I see that the earth is flat, then the whole of it must be flat..."

When we find fossils - we dont see the smooth transitions. All we see is a bunch of different-looking petrified [once] living things. Is it really fair to assume that all of them evolved from some carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and hydrogen combining under some special condtions? We cannot exclude it as a possibilty (even though we dont see a record of that. Of course, we cant be sure that life did not evolve elsewhere in the universe, and was then brought here by some meteorite... and that God who warned Noah was not a representative of some alien specie who saw the comet approach the earth and wanted to help us survive it), but isnt it too much to call it a scientific truth and leave no room for discussion? Sounds like religion. And all of you are calling Hovind (and me because I defend some of his views) a heretic. If this were middle ages, Im sure WebShaman would burn me at a stake.

and Im still waiting for someone to answer the questions in previous post...

Asptamer - I must reiterate: scientific 'theory', on the level of what we are discussing here, is not jsut some guy sitting in a room pondering how things might have happened.

This, however, is what you are trying to do.

There is so much random rambling in your posts that ignores established facts that to address it all would be a mind-numbing enterprise.

No, we cannot continue to answer every question you might ahve about these things - go read a few books.

Apparently, as you suggested, yuo've slept through your science classes. It serves no purpose to continue responding to your random ponderings - get some foundation first, then we can discuss the details...

asptamer wrote:

quote:

---

DL spoke of something solid or real or verifiable, and said that I dont give any of that. Well, neither does science..

---

Um, yes, science does give something solid, real and verifiable, so you must have been sleeping through your science classes. There are plenty of solid, real, verifiable facts to back up most scientific theories. If you can't see and agree with that statement, then you are very dilusional and no further discussion with you is worthwhile undertaking.

uhhh like what??

u wont tell cuz I dont deserve the energy spent on typing it up? or cuz u cant answer those?
I've read/heard a lot about the subject, but now that I think about it - I dont really recall anything SOLID and indisputable.

quote:

---

I dont really recall anything SOLID and indisputable.

---

Just because you do not recall the facts does not mean that they do not exist. If you spent as much time reading a good science text as you do watching those videos, you might actually learn something.

No, I take that back, you probably wouldn't.

So...are you saying you would like us to divulge the entire contents of our current scientific understanding to you?

I mean.....what you are asking - considering the extent of discussion already undertaken here - is for the things you are already saying you don't buy to be re-explained to you, with all the detail and background available....we're talking a discussion of several years length.

So no, I don't feel any desire to pull out more facts for you to dismiss without understanding - sorry.

read up. see what it's all about...and why we 'believe' what we do...

Again - we're talking about centuries of study, observation, experimentation, and corroboration by people with a wide variety of religious/educational backgrounds.

It's not something "beleived" because it's in some grade-school text books...

ok. thanks for your time, profs. Briggl and DL

First of all, my apologies asptamer. I did indeed get you mixed up with Kevin G. My mistake, and my apology.

Second, didn't you have at least 12 years of schooling? During those years, didn't you receive the foundation of scientific knowledge? Physics, Chemistry, Geography, and Biology?

Why should we repeat that here? You have already had the basics!

and with this attitude, no wonder you haven't learned much.....

This "evolution is just a theory" argument is another that AnsweringGenesis.org says should not be used.
Again, I say, do the tiniest bit of research to get your story straight. This isn't the little leagues. The people here are intelligent people who take their passions (for web development, science, math, creationism, and others) very seriously.

Asptamer - You said "I dont really recall anything SOLID and indisputable" - What are you referring to with this? Is it evolution? Physics? Chemistry? Fossils? Radiometric dating? I may have missed what you were referring to, and if so, I apologize. Hovind has obviously raised some questions for you. Now, I don't know what your background in the sciences have been, and I will make no assumptions based on the questions you have raised. I have a pretty strong background in earth sciences - and from what I have seen of Hovind's work is he takes the basic idea of a scientific principle without really acknowledging the entire process to make his theory or ideas sound plausible. He asks, "Why does science claim the earth is so old?" I have to ask, "Why is he so bent on it not being that old?"

Someone mentioned in another thread about this month's National Geographic. The main article is "Was Darwin Wrong?" The article goes on to explain that a) he wasn't, b) the number of Americans not believing in evolution has not changed in the last 20 years, c) gives excellent examples of how evolution works both in modern day and through the ages - explaining how some of those "gaps" came to be. If you get the opportunity, I highly recommend this article to anyone - I think it is one of the best and most comprehensive articles on evolution I have ever read.

^ Absolutely. If you have questions about evolution, this artilce is a great place to jump in.

As for Hovind asking why science claims the earth is so old - great. Ask! Investigate. Take the evidence you find and proffer your own theory, if a sound scientific method takes you that far.

As I said earlier, that's the way science works. That's why science exists.

But man....these theories that he brings forward, and his "evidence" for them is just plain frightening in most cases.

So, here is one for Kevin G., Asptamer, and Gideon :

If the world is really just 6000 years old, and Noah took in all the animals in pairs on the Ark...it has been discussed, that all animals at that time were herbivores.

However, one teeny-tiny problem still remains, maybe one of you could explain it for me?

What about the snake? We know that the snake existed before the flood (since the garden of eden, to be precise - just using a reference from the bible, thank you). And a snake is definitely a predator. There are NO vegetarian snakes.

Please explain this to me.

Oh that ones easy!

A) Snales swim! Didnt you see ANACONDA the movie

B) Snakes also live in holes - Air Pockets! - And it was spring so they just ate their offspring to survive the 40 days and nights.

C) The Devil protected the really evil creatures!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Now I see why you have remained "unknown"...hehe.



For those looking to maybe understand Evolution - Biology and Evolutionary Theory is a good start.

Let us have some more fun! - check out The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution. A fascinating look at evolution from the Islamic viewpoint.

I wonder what Hindus and Taoists think of Evolution?

A Hindu perspective - Dharma vs. Darwin?

Fresh light on cellular theory - http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/08/15/stories/2002081500030200.htm

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-16-2004 12:07)

What's a snale?

Perhaps a snake that lives in a shell at the bottom of ponds?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I thought it was a fast mutation of a snake and a snail? Who knows what strange things happened in those dark corners of the Ark?

And yet all of us do; one way or another we adhere to ancient perceptions in this modern world!

Could you perhaps explain what that has to do with "hobbits"?

Snakes are known to eat eggs. Perhaps at the time of eden it swallowed whole fruit.
You never know. Or perhaps it ate insects which are not like animal life. But, is that
really important to understanding Hobbits.

hehehe!

I thought I was alone at this site.

DL-44nsaid somthing awhile back that caught my attention, so I thought i would interject....

I'm new to this site . I made a couple of comments on ANTICHRIST & evolution vs, creation that I thought might keep it a little more bible-based versus off the cuff.

quote:

---

Perhaps at the time of eden it swallowed whole fruit.
You never know. Or perhaps it ate insects which are not like animal life.

---

Perhaps?? You are basing something on a perhaps?! Prove it. Show me the evidence.

All evidence points to the contrary.

As for the comments made by DL, you really should have listened first, instead of firing off your mouth. Now it is too late.

valpal1: You should definitely learn to click on the button to edit your posts instad of posting an army of messages.

quote:

---

DL-44nsaid somthing awhile back that caught my attention, so I thought i would interject....

---

In addition to the edit button, the [ quote ] functionality is quite helpful.

If you are going to address something someone said in an earlier post, it is much easier to make your point if you quote the text you are referring to.

As to whether we all do, in fact, rely on ancient perceptions...it could be said to some degree. Our minds are not really different than they were then. We better understand the world around us, but only because of the accumulated knowledge that we can preserve and pass on. Standing on the shoulders of giants...so to speak.

Take that away, and we go right back to our limited and fearful understanding of the world.

But we *do* have such knowledge, and are obligated to make use of it, IMO.

We have the ability to outgrow our ancient minds...

{{edit - for those of you still unclear -

quote:

---

Bugimus - as far as it being how the ancient cultures saw the world....they saw a *whole* lot of things in the world that were very definately misperceptions.

it is fascinating to read the ancient perceptions in the context of them being ancient perceptions.

To read about them as "modern science" is truly frightening.

---

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-27-2004 05:14)

nice quote from Bugs there

'Bugimus - as far as it being how the ancient cultures saw the world....they saw a *whole* lot of things in the world that were very definately misperceptions.'

was it really their misperceptions, or could it possibly be ours?

and is it frightening, or amazingly interesting?

quote:

---

We have the ability to outgrow our ancient minds...

---

To clarify - that's a quote from me, responding to bugs

And to further clarify - many of these things were very definately their misperceptions, and it is most deefinately frightening when people turn to such things and call it modern science.

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-27-2004 06:44)

As good a job as people are doing as this thrad veers wildly of course I don't think anyone answered asptamers questions but first a quick stop via these statements:

quote:

---

asptamer said:

DL spoke of something solid or real or verifiable, and said that I dont
give any of that. Well, neither does science... Or maybe I've been
asleep in my biology/geology classes... if so, please, show me the
light, what is the solid and real and verifiable proof of the following
theories:

---

The problem with a lot of educaiton is that usually (esp. in the hard sciences) try and fill you full of facts to help you pass exams. What you tend not to be taught is critical thinking - although good teachers will bring it in as a vital part of your education. You not only need to examine what is being said but why people are saying it and you need to go out and dig out more evidence than you are just given and examine both arguements with your own biases left at the front door.

Asking for "solid and real and verifiable proof" appears to demonstrate a flawed understanding of what science is and does - it creates theories and hypotheses and tests them with evidence. No theory can ever be proved definitively although enough evidence can be brought together to show that some theories (plate tectonics for example) are as close to a good representation of what is actually happening as to be treated as a Fact. Science's apparent inability to give "definitive Truth" is often seen as a flaw (whereas it is its greatest strength) and is one of the reasons that religon and Creationism seem attractive as they do claim to offer Truth.

Clearly if you aren't paying attention either it makes things trickier

But on to the questions:

quote:

---

asptamer said:
1)All life evolved from a chemical soup millions of years ago when the
conditions were suitable for such change (this is free-swimming
chemicals --->&gt; living things).

---

The key stepping stone appears to be tholins - it works in the lab and is one of the things that our trip to Titan will possibly help us finally verfiy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/saturn_prog_summary.shtml

quote:

---

asptamer said:
2)Although we get huge errors while radio-dating things, we believe
that things are 100s of millions years old, yet there is proof that
most of those things could very well be younger than most people on
earth.
(though I dont say they are indeed... just could be, but if they could be so young, their age can be anything. even 4000 years)

---

There does seem to be confusion over the word "errors" - it is a statistical term (error margins) but if it helps you can think of them more as standard deviations (they provide a percentage certainty that the actual date falls into that specific range). If such uncertainty is uncomfortable or people then I'd refer them to my earlier answers.

I'd be interested in the "proof" that things that are dated to millions of years old are much more recent. Sometimes this is based in solid science but when I have heard it from creationists it is almost always are due to a poor grasp of the actual science or a wilful misreading of it.

It all comes back to critical thinking in the end - I'm not going to tell you what to think (you need to find that out for yourself). Just be wary of anyone who thinks they can and offers you Truth.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

To Emperor,

I enjoyed your comments to Asptamer.

quote--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all comes back to critical thinking in the end - I'm not going to tell you what to think (you need to find that out for yourself). Just be wary of anyone who thinks they can and offers you Truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth vs. Fact appears similar to an oxymoron, as one could say. I really think that the Bible's truth is in harmony to any Fact that is presented in today's world society.

What I mean is that the Bible is not a text book on sciences, religions, medicines, governments, mathmatics, history or the like. It is a Book about the Unique God of the known universe and his actions in regards to creation; and, more specifically, his dealings with mankind. Even to be more speciific, those that worship him.

However, when His Word touches on the aforementioned subjects it is fully reliable.

I have looked at what others have said is "proof" and have found it misguided and wanting. The Bible IS NOT "just another mythical book". The accuracy of the information in Genesis chs. 1&2 is indisputable incomparison to all other such ancient accounts about creation. There was a Beginning, Heavens First, next our Sun, moon and earth are mentioned. Then, God forms land apart from the waters that covered the primordial earth. After that, God forms multiple divisions between waters on Earth, above it such as clouds, and lastly, a water canopy above the clouds that was destroyed during the Flood. Sequentially, and most logically, he imprints the life principle on inanimate matter by forming vegetation of everykind. After this sea and air life appear and, lastly, all sorts of land animals and humans.

This is a Fact of the order of living things. Where do the dinosaurs fit in, you might challenge? I say what the bible says; that all animal life existed before mankind was brought into existence. That is the Truth.
Did humans see Jurassicical dinosaurs ? THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE. That is a FACT.

In my opinion, God ended their lives before man came into existence. And, It would seem that cave paintings would have been found showing these great beasts alive if they were here when mankind was.

What interests me most about the Genesis account is its order and logicalness where no other creation account can. All others tell of killing and blood or wagon-before-the horse chronology that would make any serious student of knowledge disregard it immediadely.

As far as how old the earth is, say billions. The bible says the earth was here before God started causing it to be a habitable world. The earth was being formed with the rest of the heavens,i.e. solar system and if lunar theorists are correct things on earth stayed hot for a long time on earth and was very nubulous here when the moon as a rogue satelite crashed into earth and eventually became its "anchor for life".

I say anchor for life because these theorists say the earth would totter so much that life on earth would be impossibe.

If evolutionists are correct we are the luckiest planet in the universe. If they are wrong they will be the sorriest group in the universe.

Quick thought, Ch.1 says 6 days then God rested. Ch.2 says God Created Heavens and Earth in a Day. I believe the word "day" here and in other places of the bible are symbolic of a undetermined amount of time.
A example of this is when Peter says With God a thousand years are as a "DAY" to Him. In Fact, 1 day mentioned in the Bible is 7,000 years long.

So, maybe people should give the TRUTH A CHANCE IN THEIR LIFE. LIKEWISE NOT FORSAKING FACTS.

From the Gallery: Hoo hoo ... please, guys, give me just a few moments to grab some Peanut M&Ms and a beer before you respond to this one ...

Edit: OK, sorry, can't wait. I hate to butt in and offer so little, but a couple of things just stuck with me ...

quote:

---

Did humans see Jurassicical dinosaurs ? THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE. That is a FACT.

---

Yes, it is a "FACT" that the Bible is silent on the issue of dinosaurs. What in the name of sweet Moses does that prove? You said absolutely nothing with this statement. It makes me wonder what your "logicalness" was behind it.

And though I am not arguing for the concurrent existence of man and dino, there is no "logicalness" in stating that the absence of known dinosaur cave paintings proves they did not live together. You seem to have a thing for arguing points based on a lack of evidence.

Also, it might benefit you to know that dinosaurs did not exist solely in the Jurassic period. It might also benefit you to know that it was the Jurassic period.

OK, back to my M's and beer. Carry on.



(Edited by Wes on 11-28-2004 06:16)

i'm just confused now.

the problem with this subject in general is that we have (in most places) folks with lots of bible knowledge and little knowledge of science arguing why science is wrong with people with lots of scientific knowledge and little to no understanding of the bible. gee, i can't imagine why no one can communicate

as i've mentioned a few times before, an interested read on this is a book called the science of god. its written by a guy named gerald schroeder, a theologian with a phd in physics from MIT. gives an interesting balance to the usual two extremes...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

valpal1 said:

If evolutionists are correct we are the luckiest planet in the
universe. If they are wrong they will be the sorriest group in the
universe.

---

You haven't really addressed any of my points (which is your call) but I thought I should refer you to the Anthropic Principle on this last one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Basically if conditions weren't perfect for life then we wouldn't exist and be able to ask how come conditions are so perfect for life.

I'm unsure why they'd be the sorriest group in the Universe? Because God will send them to Hell and have their most private parts tormented for all eternity by blowtorch-wielding demons?

We are all trying to make sense of the Universe - science is trying a different approach to one that is based on diffrent people's interpretations of different holy books/creation myhts.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

quote:

---

Emperor said:

God will send them to Hell and have their most private parts tormented for all
eternity by blowtorch-wielding demons?

---

Do they have to pay for that?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:

Do they have to pay for that?

---

I'm afraid that the nature of eternal torment means that those who want it won't get it.

What I find ironic is that for some people Heaven would be Hell so do they get sent to Heaven or is a little corner of Hell madeover to be all nice and polite and flowery?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.