Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Young Earth Science

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
jasoncran said:
perhaps we should observe another poster here who has a science background and doesnt not have any faith in evo. he has been here a while, longer then me.

theres more then one way to skin the cat of evolution.

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? -Romans 3:7

Any such person that you speak of with the proper credentials would certainly be a benefit. I just cannot understand why

A rose by any other name smell as sweet?

If the truth by any other mouth sound more believable?

The truth is not sanctified by the one who speaks it. Surely, someone who is less visable in a spotted past would be a greater testament.

Are the words of the Apostle Paul unfit given his past? Should God have chosen another man to be his apostle to the gentiles? In no way.

That is not a ridiculous statement. I'm sure many 1st century Christians felt Paul was invalid in much the same was as Hovind's criminal problems cast him.
Anyways, I don't think there is any more reason to defend Hovind. I posted the videos for the evidence. Its there for those who find profit in them.
 
jasoncran said:
but a poodle with a poodle with never get the wolf back.

that being said, i listen an acredited scientist that doenst accept evo(he is a chemist but has done work with the famous sickle cell trait) and told me why that aint so beneficial and listed the other illness that kill or seriously sicken(if thats a word) the patient, all for a 25% reduction in the rate of catching malaria.

Because the poodle is a hybrid of other dogs.

Two poodles would be of a common genetic background. If the wolf is part of their DNA linage, then the wolf is only one part of many ancestral breedings.

That is like saying if you marry your sister you should end up with offspring identical to your great great great grandpa on your father's side.
 
uh, but theres so many more that are in the field of science that have degrees and often fight the fight agianst evo.

ever heard of the human genome project, one of them that worked on that was a creationist!
and used that to show how the nature of the double helix shows the glory of the creator.
 
jasoncran said:
uh, but theres so many more that are in the field of science that have degrees and often fight the fight agianst evo.

ever heard of the human genome project, one of them that worked on that was a creationist!
and used that to show how the nature of the double helix shows the glory of the creator.

And they do great work and should be commended.

If you can find lectures or debates featuring one of them, I would be more than happy to use them over Hovind if they do as good a job. Hovind is all I have at the moment. He isn't perfect, but he will do until I find better material.
 
jasoncran said:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.creationstudies.org/
this one is the one i listen the most as they have a local radio broadcast and museum in ft.lauderdale

with the creation sites, the above two and also the the site called truthorigins,org it wise to go to non biased sites that have no political moviations to decieve, the the former have been caught in some errs, but that doesnt mean they have no use,just check them out and use govt site when the post or comment on a reaserch ie the synthetic cell.

so that no evo supporter can say that you are being decieved by those that knowingly lie, and both sides do that. :verysad

but again verify all claims and reasearch for yourself and educate, i have been doing that, that is why i havent been posting alot on the science side of the debate( i need to know the contra side better)
 
Haha, I found the site about week ago. It seemed very promising. I didn't have a chance to explore it deeply though, because it was late. Are there actual videos on there or just articles? (It doesn't matter to me personally I will excavate that site anyways) When I was there before I remember a page with a long list of Ph.D's who were creationists. Anyways, thanks. I certainly will look at this site.

Edit:

Your next two links I did not know of.

Thanks for the ammo.
 
Ashua said:
Haha, I found the site about week ago. It seemed very promising. I didn't have a chance to explore it deeply though, because it was late. Are there actual videos on there or just articles? (It doesn't matter to me personally I will excavate that site anyways) When I was there before I remember a page with a long list of Ph.D's who were creationists. Anyways, thanks. I certainly will look at this site.
which one as i edited that while you posted that.

the one in ft.lauderdale i haven't heard anything derogative on.
 
Bottom line, even most YE creationists are embarrassed by Hovind. He's a fraud, pretending to be a Christian, while fleecing decent people for donations.
 
The Barbarian said:
Bottom line, even most YE creationists are embarrassed by Hovind. He's a fraud, pretending to be a Christian, while fleecing decent people for donations.
I expect Barb to take the debate to attacking the person instead of the arguments, but I am a bit surprised at some of my friends here.
First of all, Ken has stated that he is innocent of the charges. He may or may not be but while there are ongoing appeals I believe it's a bit harsh to judge the man.
Has anyone actually bothered to look into his case? I have (see below) he had been acting under some extreemly poor legal advice for many years without any problems until the day he was charged.

In any case, I would love to debate his scientific arguments.
It appears that Barb has avoided the real debate because he has no ligitimate scientific rebuttal.


Q: What were the accusations against Dr. Hovind and what was his defense?

A:1. Failure to withhold employee-related taxes:
Explanation:

From the start of the ministry, Dr. Hovind sought legal counsel on the proper way to compensate those who would serve with him in the ministry. He was told by several attorneys that as a 508 organization, CSE was not required to withhold taxes and that each person serving would be responsible for paying their own income taxes. For seventeen years the ministry operated without incident, and no notice was ever given to CSE or Dr. Hovind that the IRS wanted any changes made on this issue until the day the charges were brought.

2.Structuring cash transactions in order to evade bank reporting requirements:
Explanation:

Up until 2003, CSE withdrew cash in order to compensate those who served at CSE. There was no knowledge of bank secrecy laws and never any intention of evading Internal Revenue Service regulations.

3.Threatening and impeding the investigation of a government agency:
Explanation:

Because Dr. Hovind filed papers questioning actions of the IRS, which was his legal right, he was charged with "impeding" the agency. They also believed he "threatened agents with bodily harm" by praying for those involved on public radio.

Bronzesnake
 
During the sentencing a recording of telephone conversations Hovind made from jail was played in court. In those conversations Hovind said the Internal Revenue Service, presiding judge and prosecutor broke the law by going after him, and there were things he could do "to make their lives miserable." In other recordings played Hovind was trying to hide assets from the government. One conversation with Eric Hovind, Kent Hovind's son, showed the two conspire to put assets in other peoples names and "loan" a motorhome with intent to have it returned. This was in violation of a court order, which allows property to be seized in restitution of owed money. In court, however, "My father is not a man who is in love with money. He's in love with God," Eric told the judge.

In another jailhouse phone conversation Hovind spoke with an unidentified man, and he agreed with Hovind on hiding 10% of Hovind's merchandise and master DVDs from the government. Hovind then proposed a new shipping location out of the reach of the government to continue to sell merchandise despite a court order to pay debt or surrender his assets.

Mark O'Brien reported, "Although phones include warnings that conversations are recorded, he didn't mince words as he ran up eight hours of calls per week."

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Dr_Dino% ... _pay_taxes

This is a guy who decided he was too smart to get caught.

I would be willing to have anyone pick out what they think is the most compelling of Hovind's arguments against evolutionary theory, and present it here. I suspect we'll be waiting a long time for that.
 
Bronzesnake said:
I expect Barb to take the debate to attacking the person instead of the arguments
Comments like these need to stop. Thanks.
 
Ashua said:
.

Hovind is to accredited PH.D
as
Evolution is to scientificly PROVEN fact

Hovind does not have an accredited Ph.D but evolution is indeed an accepted scientific fact. It is 'proven' to the same extent that the spherical earth is proven, or any other accepted scientific fact is proven. The Theory of Natural Selection is the best explanation that we have to explain the scientific fact of evolution.

Best Regards.

Physicist
 
Physicist said:
Ashua said:
.


Hovind is to accredited PH.D
as
Evolution is to scientificly PROVEN fact

Hovind does not have an accredited Ph.D but evolution is indeed an accepted scientific fact. It is 'proven' to the same extent that the spherical earth is proven, or any other accepted scientific fact is proven. The Theory of Natural Selection is the best explanation that we have to explain the scientific fact of evolution.

Best Regards.

Physicist

I respectfully disagree.

No it certainly is not proven to the same extent as a spherical Earth is proven. That is an incredibly false statement. What is a fact is variation within a species (aka micro evolution). There are limits to how far it goes before bad mutations accumulate and overwhelm a deviant organism long before it ever advances beyond it's genus. There are turkeys and there are penguins and there are ravens and sparrows and ostriches and flamingos and peacocks. All had a common ancestor-- a bird. They are all birds of one KIND. Macro evolution is unproven and unprovable because its a lie. To suppose that one creature begets down through his generations a new "kind" or genus, is an absolute fairy tale; born of wild speculation without justification.

You mentioned natural selection. Natural selection is not one in the same with evolution, though they are forever paired in discussion. Natural selection is the residual of scenario. It is the process which evolutionists claim governs the compass of evolution-- not evolution itself. The winds exist without sails. That is like trying to use a rainbow to prove leprechauns and pots of gold.
 
Physicist said:
Ashua said:
.

Hovind is to accredited PH.D
as
Evolution is to scientificly PROVEN fact

Hovind does not have an accredited Ph.D but evolution is indeed an accepted scientific fact. It is 'proven' to the same extent that the spherical earth is proven, or any other accepted scientific fact is proven. The Theory of Natural Selection is the best explanation that we have to explain the scientific fact of evolution.

Best Regards.

Physicist

Technically, the earth is not a sphere at all, it is more of a prolate ellipsoid, as a perfect spherical body is near impossible to attain... well I suppose God could easily make the earth into a perfectly spherical body, but than again, that wouldn't jibe with your views now would it?

Furthermore, to assert that TOE is as evident as a near-spherical earth is an outrageous claim, and assuming you are a real physicist, you would know this. TOE is a theory that cannot be proven to within even five million shadows of a doubt. Evolution is a well established fact, however to take such a basic building block and to stretch it to explain all life forms is like putting to little butter on to much bread, it simply doesn't work.

For this reason, I am going to have to assume (given that you actually are a physicist) that when you stated that "evolution is indeed an accepted scientific fact. It is 'proven' to the same extent that the spherical earth is proven" you truly did not mean TOE, but instead micro-evolution.
 
The claims of evolution and old Earth are based off of conjecture and interpretation of evidence.

The fact of evolution is supported by the following lines of evidence:

1. Directly observed speciation.

2. Darwin's claims about natural selection have been verified by direct observation.

3. The nested hierarchy first noted by Linnaeus is only found in cases of common descent.

4. The nested hierarchy has been confirmed by DNA analysis, and we know it works because it can be checked on organisms of known descent.

5. Predicted transitionals have been found in the fossil record, confirming the theory.

6. More significantly, no transitional not predicted by evolutionary theory has been found. We have feathered reptiles, but no feathered mammals, whales with functional legs, but no mollusks with functional legs, and so on.

7. Directly-observed evolution of irreducibly complex features.

8. Documented evolution of a new body part in about 30 years of evolution.

Nothing in science is ever "proven." But at this point, it would take a very strong resistance to reality to deny evolution.

It is in no ways proven and as I said, Hovind uses quite a bit of "accredited" scientific documentation in his arguments.

Show us some of that.

He also makes physical observations no different than they do.

Like his observation that primitive men used to kill T. rex by pulling off their "tiny" arms? Those arms were actually much larger than ours. Hovind is a criminal and a shameless exploiter of the ignorant.
 
The Barbarian said:
Show us some of that.


1. Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
2. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
3. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).
4. One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000. (Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
5. One part of Dima, a baby frozen mammoth, was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old†(Troy L. Pewe, Quarternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, p. 30).
6. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (Radio Carbon Years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. (Harold E. Anthony, Natures Deep Freeze. Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300).
7. The two Colorado Creek, AK Mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 and 16,150 respectively. (Robert M. Thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska. Quaternary Research, vol. 37, no. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228).
8. Living Penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.
9. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (R. Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280).
10. Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years. (Strange Stores, Amazing Facts, Readers Digest, 1978, p. 335).
11. Hugh Miller, Columbus, OH had 4 dinosaur one samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old. The samples were not identified as dinosaur in advance. (Noah to Abram the Turbulent Years by Erich von Fange, p. 36).
12. A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, Carl Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens; erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years (the difference between these two years is a 96% error rate) – a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans. (Leslie Kaufman, Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us? Newsweek, December 23, 1996, p. 52).


1. Wild dates are obtained.
2. Dates that don’t fit evolution theory are rejected and not published. “Correct dates match the geologic column.
3. It is based on the assumptions that: A. The original content of the sample is known. B. The decay rate never changes. C. The sample has not been contaminated.



In carbon dating, when samples of a known age are test, Radioisotope Dating doesn’t work. When samples are of an unknown age, Radioisotope Dating is assumed to work. This doesn’t make sense.



“Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.†(Derek V. Ager, Fossil Frustrations, New Scientist, vol. 100, November 10, 1983, p. 425).



“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.†(J.E. O’Rourke, Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy, American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 54).



Potassium-Argon dating:



Potassium-Argon dating can supposedly date older rocks and fossils than carbon 14 because it has a longer half-life of 1.3 billion years. The potassium decays to argon and the half-life was determined by measuring the number of particles that decayed in a 3 or 4 day period, then extrapolating for the time it would take for half the sample to decay. This doesn’t seem to be a very accurate way to measure half-life, especially if you are talking about a billion years.



Scientists believe that lava, also known as basalt, has no argon in it when it is ejected from a volcano. After coming out, the potassium starts to decay to argon. Because it starts without argon, the basalt is assumed to be the perfect stuff to date.



Potassium-Argon is not accurate at all. Here are some examples of the dating of volcanic lava:

1. Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily from an eruption in 122 BC gave an age of 250,000 years old, when we know it is less than 2,000 years old (G.B. Dalyrmple, 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55).
2. Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a date of 1.6 million years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55). It was only 200 years old.
3. Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (erupted in 1959) gave an age of 8,500,000. (Impact #307 Jan. 1999).
4. Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (erupted in 1964) gave a date of 700,000 years old. (Impact #307 Jan. 1999).
5. Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (erupted in 1972) gave an age of 350,000 years old. (Impact #307 Jan. 1999).
6. New Lava dome growing inside the crater of Mt. St. Helens since the 1980 eruption was dated at 350,000 to 2.8 million years old (S.A. Austia, 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, CIN Tech Journal 10(3), pp. 335-343).


As for the farce of the geologic column, put some soil in a glass, pour some water on top of it, and stir it around. You will see strata form right before your eyes.
 
Some of Ashu's examples of faulty dating:
1. Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963 pp. 634-637).
2. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6 Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211).
3. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61).

I got no farther than these fraudulent examples to realize that the authors were being deceptive. I'm not blaming you, but this is a great example of the way the authors of creationist tracts try to mislead their followers.

Mollusks tend to get their carbon from geologic sources. So mollusks and organisms that live on them will never give an accurate carbon date. Only organisms that get most of their carbon from atmospheric sources will show an accurate date.

Mollusks, unlike plants et al., get the carbon for their shells from ancient carbonate and not the atmosphere. Ancient carbon is already depleted in C-14. Therefore mollusk shells are inappropriate for carbon dating because they do not, even when alive, have C-14 at the level present in the atmosphere. The level of C-14 in mollusk shells reflects their source of carbonate.
http://www.fsteiger.com/carbon14.html

Does that mean that the people who gave you that material didn't know it? No, most of them know it, but they correctly guessed that you didn't know it.

I happen to know about this one, too...

New Lava dome growing inside the crater of Mt. St. Helens since the 1980 eruption was dated at 350,000 to 2.8 million years old (S.A. Austia, 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, CIN Tech Journal 10(3), pp. 335-343).

Austin took dacite from the lava dome, because the dacite has xenocrysts (unmelted and therefore very old crystals) in it. Although the lab warned him such material would give an erroneous date, he told them to test it anyway, and then was shocked to find the date was quite old.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt ... ite_kh.htm

And this is a clever bit of quote-mining:
Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.â€

You see, radioisotope methods in rock over about 50,000 years old can only be done on igneous rock. Fossils are always found in sedimentary rock. So we can only use radiometric methods when there is igneous rock above and below the fossil.

Did the people who gave you that material not know it? Of course they knew it. But again, they correctly guessed that you didn't know it. And that's all that mattered to them.

If you like, I can run down some more of these, but the result will always be the same. It always is. And you have to ask yourself; "if these people have truth on their side, why do they need to be dishonest?"
 
So you're saying in the vast majority of cases they cannot rely on radiometrics for fossils? (due to lack of surrounding igneous rock)

How do they date them then? The geologic column? That glass experiment kind of throws taht up in the air.
 
Back
Top