[_ Old Earth _] If you reject knowledge because of the messenger dont bother

[Ashua]

[youtube:2f040mjr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7rJmd3ECBk[/youtube:2f040mjr]

This is by far the most 'watchable' and highest quality Hovind video in terms of pure content. There are power points and visuals, and the flow is less stale than with Hilpman. He does a really good job at showing how riddled with holes, evolution theory is. If you want to harp on his past, then I warned you not to bother here. If you feel you must attack his character, know that Paul's offenses were much worse and had you lived then, would you say he is unfit to deliver knowledge? David, a man after God's own heart led a blameless man to his death by adulterous lust.-- I could easily fill a list with 20 names of people who fell short and had ugly moments but were great in God's purpose. He uses the weak and seemingly unfit to magnify his arm against the proud.

It seems like there is more than what meets the eye.... He had a serious beef with taxes before his arrest. I disagree with him on that. He was without excuse to rend unto Caesar, but I really do think there was more to it. Every secret thing will be made known whether it be good or whether it be evil----and God is no respecter of persons, you and I are no exception.

 

[jwu]

How about selecting a specific argument and discussing it in detail?

 

[Barbarian]

If you don't understand it well enough to present it, how do you know any of it is true? BTW, dishonesty on the part of a person does make me much less likely to take anything he says as true. Who is the person making the claims?

 

[Ashua]

If you don't understand it well enough to present it, how do you know any of it is true? BTW, dishonesty on the part of a person does make me much less likely to take anything he says as true. Who is the person making the claims?

Are you saying he is incapable of understanding what he is talking about apart from having a 'recognized' doctorate; especially in this day and age of free information? Really?

 

[logical bob]

I'm not spending two and a half hours watching that, but I skipped about a bit in the first 20 minutes or so. I stopped when he said "you have to have time, space and matter simultaneously." Anyone who can talk about "having time simultaneously" and presume to discuss scientific ideas in a place like UCB is an idiot. Period.

 

[Ashua]

I'm not spending two and a half hours watching that, but I skipped about a bit in the first 20 minutes or so. I stopped when he said "you have to have time, space and matter simultaneously." Anyone who can talk about "having time simultaneously" and presume to discuss scientific ideas in a place like UCB is an idiot. Period.

Science classifies time as a physical fourth dimension. The purpose of that part is to explain that there is a major fallacy in logic when you argue that a big bang can occur before matter. (How can the physical components of the big bang manifest except the matter predate it. How did matter come except by some sort of cosmic cataclysm (big bang) There are major 'simultaneous' contradiction issues with this theory.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you saying he is incapable of understanding what he is talking about apart from having a 'recognized' doctorate; especially in this day and age of free information? Really?

I have a friend who set up a University, offering "recognized" doctorates. He gave me one, and made me part of the faculty. But he made no secret that his diploma mill was a joke. I'd never put my PhD in creation science education on my resume. But a lot of jackleg preachers get "recognized doctorates" from "universities" operating out of Church basements.

Still, I know a creationist who has no degree at all, repairs cars, and understands the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. So he's far more knowledgeable then fools like Hovind.

 

[Barbarian]

Science classifies time as a physical fourth dimension.

No. Common error. You can think of time as a fourth dimension, but it is never classified as a physical dimension. You can't move about in time; it really doesn't exist in that sense. It is merely the flow of change, which is why you can't go backwards in it.

The purpose of that part is to explain that there is a major fallacy in logic when you argue that a big bang can occur before matter.

What kind of idiot thinks the Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory?

 

[jasoncran]

the big bang isnt part of the toe, the toe only deals with life after the formation of the first cell.

how the cell got there is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

the big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be.

i direct this to ashua. and i dont accept the toe nor the the theory abiogenesis. the jury still out on the big bang for me.

 

[Ashua]

Science classifies time as a physical fourth dimension.

No. Common error. You can think of time as a fourth dimension, but it is never classified as a physical dimension. You can't move about in time; it really doesn't exist in that sense. It is merely the flow of change, which is why you can't go backwards in it.

[quote:234l1fq9]The purpose of that part is to explain that there is a major fallacy in logic when you argue that a big bang can occur before matter.

What kind of idiot thinks the Big Bang is part of evolutionary theory?[/quote:234l1fq9]


That is the concept of time I have too, but physicists like to elaborate on it.

About the big bang---evolution link... I think the part of the video you saw was Hovind listing types of evolution that go beyond organic--- (the 'evolution' or change in physical matter that slowly would build into complex systems) What he was saying is physical matter must first 'evolve' for lack of a better word out of essentially nothing, then sub atomic particles must 'evolve from whatever composes them, then atoms must evolve then molecular evolution, and so on. The importance of this that (atheist) evolutionists have to rely on this to explain the theory of (gradual) abiogenesis (spontaneous generation plus a lot more time) He argues that if abiogenesis is proven false, evolution, being dependent on abiogenesis is also false by default.

A great bulk of that video is students challenging him, so its possible the part you saw was Hovind answering a direct question.

I agree Big Bang theory is not a direct relation to evolution theory, but there is a strong suggestive instinct to a link in our society. Sure there are some creationists--even Christians who feel evolution is (somehow) compatible with their religion. That is still a minority within the evolutionist ranks.



***edit*** just to make it abundantly clear. Hovind is suggesting that there must be evolutionary mechanics to the formation of the cosmos from the first base unit of matter to chemicals and molecules to solar systems and planets and so on. I don't think he means the process and mechanics of non-living evolution would be exactly the same as biological evolution, but I think he means the systems set in motion would be reminiscent of evolution in that it is dependent on time and natural manufacturing. (such as the 'evolution' of atom bonds to form molecules. He argues bio-evolution would never have the chance to take place except these 'evolutions' predate it. I probably explained that bad but I'm multi-tasking.

 

[jasoncran]

ashua you dont accept even micro evolution?

 

[Ashua]

ashua you dont accept even micro evolution?

Yes I have stated several times on these forums that I believe in variation within species. We have the races because of variation. But we all came from Adam-- a man. Variations within a "kind". Genesis says everything comes after it's "kind" Science calls this a "genus" Evolution does not transcend genus'.

They have found 20 million year old homo sapien fossils. They throw them out because it contradicts the 'fossil record's' chronology.

 

[Ashua]

the big bang isnt part of the toe, the toe only deals with life after the formation of the first cell.

how the cell got there is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

the big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be.

i direct this to ashua. and i dont accept the toe nor the the theory abiogenesis. the jury still out on the big bang for me.

Let me ask you this chicken and egg question.

What came first? The big bang which generated all of the matter in the cosmos, or the gases which generated the big bang?

 

[jasoncran]

the big bang isnt part of the toe, the toe only deals with life after the formation of the first cell.

how the cell got there is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

the big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be.

i direct this to ashua. and i dont accept the toe nor the the theory abiogenesis. the jury still out on the big bang for me.

Let me ask you this chicken and egg question.

What came first? The big bang which generated all of the matter in the cosmos, or the gases which generated the big bang?

the conudrum for all scientists,is this how do they(creationist and evolutionists) honeslty prove that is they way they say it happens

do we not study nature then? no one really knows. we cant know. its all guessing! the genesis account is a literall account but it doesnt state how exaclty nature works or how God did it.

on a pure scienitific level one cant really know the beggining. to do so violates occum razor, as since we are so far removed from the point we cant really reproduce the galaxies to see how it came to be or tests or postulate and so on.

 

[jasoncran]

ashua you dont accept even micro evolution?

Yes I have stated several times on these forums that I believe in variation within species. We have the races because of variation. But we all came from Adam-- a man. Variations within a "kind". Genesis says everything comes after it's "kind" Science calls this a "genus" Evolution does not transcend genus'.

They have found 20 million year old homo sapien fossils. They throw them out because it contradicts the 'fossil record's' chronology.

these are varations of the homo species. h.neatherdalis, h erectus, and homo sapiens,and sapien archaic and sapiens sapiens. all can mate and have shared, i forgot ergaster.

that doesnt support macro but micro btw.however odd, hovind is a yecer and that is way older then yec on fossil age. are you old earth or young earth?

 

[Ashua]

the big bang isnt part of the toe, the toe only deals with life after the formation of the first cell.

how the cell got there is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

the big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe came to be.

i direct this to ashua. and i dont accept the toe nor the the theory abiogenesis. the jury still out on the big bang for me.

Let me ask you this chicken and egg question.

What came first? The big bang which generated all of the matter in the cosmos, or the gases which generated the big bang?

the conudrum for all scientists,is this how do they(creationist and evolutionists) honeslty prove that is they way they say it happens

do we not study nature then? no one really knows. we cant know. its all guessing! the genesis account is a literall account but it doesnt state how exaclty nature works or how God did it.

on a pure scienitific level one cant really know the beggining. to do so violates occum razor, as since we are so far removed from the point we cant really reproduce the galaxies to see how it came to be or tests or postulate and so on.

While it is true we cannot say we know the exact methods God used, if we call ourselves Biblical literalists, we can make educated assumptions. (I dont know if you consider the Bible 100% historically accurate or not) Genesis says God made the Earth in six days. That would rule out all of science's proposed processes right then and there. Further, as the author of creation, God is not obligated to work within the natural law of parameters which he set in place to govern the universe. Just as a computer program designer has authority to override and manipulate his program in deviation from it's 'natural' course, so can God. The Bible is full of contradictions to nature's law. The parting of the Red sea, the few fish and loaves of bread feeding thousands...water into wine walking on water raising the dead, water into blood, rubbing earth in the eyes of the blind to restore sight and so on..... It would be completely consistent with what we know about God and his workings to "speak" things into existence, as the scriptures say; for it to have gone down just like that. It would seem that God has the power to translate his will into matter. I get the impressing that this material universe is the manifest expression of the will of God.--- Translation from 'thought' to tangible as energy converting to matter.

 

[Ashua]

ashua you dont accept even micro evolution?

Yes I have stated several times on these forums that I believe in variation within species. We have the races because of variation. But we all came from Adam-- a man. Variations within a "kind". Genesis says everything comes after it's "kind" Science calls this a "genus" Evolution does not transcend genus'.

They have found 20 million year old homo sapien fossils. They throw them out because it contradicts the 'fossil record's' chronology.

these are varations of the homo species. h.neatherdalis, h erectus, and homo sapiens,and sapien archaic and sapiens sapiens. all can mate and have shared, i forgot ergaster.

that doesnt support macro but micro btw.however odd, hovind is a yecer and that is way older then yec on fossil age. are you old earth or young earth?

Young Earth. Hovind sheds doubt on aging techniques better than anything else he does. He explains how the geologic column is a farce and I could give you at least 20 scientific citations to prove radiometric dating, including potassium argon (P-AR) is BS.


Edit* Lol.. you guys censor two letter abbreviations? :P

 

[Barbarian]

About the big bang---evolution link... I think the part of the video you saw was Hovind listing types of evolution that go beyond organic--- (the 'evolution' or change in physical matter that slowly would build into complex systems) What he was saying is physical matter must first 'evolve' for lack of a better word out of essentially nothing, then sub atomic particles must 'evolve from whatever composes them, then atoms must evolve then molecular evolution, and so on.

If he thinks so, he's an idiot. And doubly so for imagining it's part of evolutionary theory. Although physicists know how matter forms from extremely high energy states, and astronomers know how heavier atoms form in the core of stars, none of it has anything to do with evolutionary theory.

The importance of this that (atheist) evolutionists have to rely on this to explain the theory of (gradual) abiogenesis (spontaneous generation plus a lot more time)

Horsefeathers. Darwin, for example, wrote that God created the first living things.

He argues that if abiogenesis is proven false, evolution, being dependent on abiogenesis is also false by default.

Then he's an even bigger fool than I thought. Evolutionary theory would work the same way, whether Darwin was right, or if abiogenesis happened.

A great bulk of that video is students challenging him, so its possible the part you saw was Hovind answering a direct question.

I never watch the videos. Almost all of them are a waste of time. I figure if the person promoting them can't adequately present the argument, then the video is probably worthless.

I agree Big Bang theory is not a direct relation to evolution theory, but there is a strong suggestive instinct to a link in our society. Sure there are some creationists--even Christians who feel evolution is (somehow) compatible with their religion.

Most of the world's Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

That is still a minority within the evolutionist ranks.

That's wrong, even in the United States. The last poll on this, by Gallup, shows that about 50% of Americans think humans evolved. About 44% disagree. Of that 50% who think humans evolve, 36% think God did it, and 14% think He did not.

Given Hovind's criminal activities, I think it is very likely that he doesn't believe what he preaches, and did it only because it made him rich.

 

[logical bob]

I'm not spending two and a half hours watching that, but I skipped about a bit in the first 20 minutes or so. I stopped when he said "you have to have time, space and matter simultaneously." Anyone who can talk about "having time simultaneously" and presume to discuss scientific ideas in a place like UCB is an idiot. Period.

Science classifies time as a physical fourth dimension. The purpose of that part is to explain that there is a major fallacy in logic when you argue that a big bang can occur before matter. (How can the physical components of the big bang manifest except the matter predate it. How did matter come except by some sort of cosmic cataclysm (big bang) There are major 'simultaneous' contradiction issues with this theory.

Oh dear.

Cosmology proposes that the big bang was a singularity - a point of zero size and infinite density. Nobody thinks it had "physical components." Matter and space-time are consequences of the big bang, so it makes no sense to talk about "before" the big bang.

People far cleverer than you or me have devoted thier careers to developing this very rigourous theory. It's incredibly arrogant to think you can dismiss it all without bothering to learn what it actually says because you think it contradicts some armchair notion of common sense.

This guff is all well and good in creationist circles where nobody's expected to know anything about science you can say what you like because nobody checks. It takes a special kind of hubris, however, to go to a centre of learning like Berkeley and carry on as if you had the same audience.

 

[jasoncran]

ashua, i take the bible literally, but while its possible that lord did speak it in existence.

the problem with for the scientists, do we study things like that? shrug and say it just is, not try understand how things.

for me how we got here is really an intellectual movement. i am a mechanic by trade, do i need to know how to work on the ford model a, that was built a century ago? not unless i own or being paid to work one. generally most shops dont work on those.

the same with science. does knowing the early forms of man, help cure cancer? or other things.

my main reason against evo. is if we take genesis as allegory, then what of some of the other books that refer to it?