CSE Blogs

 Just another WordPress weblog 

• Home ¦ 
• Archives ¦ 
• Pages & Links ¦ 
• Live Search
•  ¦ Options  
•  ¦ Login

1. 

   squirekyle

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 10:46am:

   ---

   We will continue to keep praying for Dr. Hovind & his whole family, I hope everyone whose lives have been changed by Dr. Hovind will send letters to the court.

2. 

   Millerfamily6

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 11:25am:

   ---

   Dear Brother Hovind, family, and CSE staff,

   It is so good to hear from you on your status. We have been lifting you up in prayer and have been wondering how you are doing. It sounds as though our Lord Jesus is keeping you strong and uplifted and His joy in you is evident. We are in Georgia, but we will do what we can, as the Lord leads, to help you out in your false incarceration. Praise the Lord for saving souls and preaching liberty to the captives! Keep up the Lord’s work, dear brother; you are a source of encouragement and truth to many thousands of Christians! We visited DAL last August and we were given a gracious tour with our family and one other present, but the staff was so kind and Brother Hovind (as busy as he is) took the time to share with us some neat tricks he knows, science, as well as a paper airplane launching contest! That meant so much to my family…you’ll never truly know how you touch other’s lives in what you do! We know that you’re not perfect (as none of us are), but thanks for being such a godly example to the body of Christ, Brother Hovind; ever striving for the truth and perfection in Christ Jesus our Lord.

   Our Lord’s grace and peace be with you,

   Michele Miller and family

3. 

   frafrifika

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 11:25am:

   ---

   Dear brother Kent;
   You are really being touched and used by Yeshua during his personal tribulation. How uplifting to read your words of reflection, encouragement and revelation. I grieve for your situation ie: separation from family,persecution etc. but am overjoyed at the new work the Lord is doing in you. We can all read your list of what God wants from you and recognize something that he wants from us too! My husband Chris and I and all of us at CCA continue to pray for you daily! In Christ Yeshua, and with our love.
   Pamela Jason

4. 

   Millerfamily6

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 11:50am:

   ---

   Here is a link which shares, in Brother Hovind’s own words, his stand on the issue with the county! This is from March of 2002, but it gives some background on this case. Hope it helps others here understand what is at stake and why he is doing this.

   http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Creationism/News/KentHovind-020301.htm

5. 

   fertich

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 11:58am:

   ---

   May the Lord bless you for taking a stand for righteousness.

   Today, John Bunyan is praised as a hero of the faith for refusing to take a license to preach.

   At the time, I wonder what other Christian leaders thought about Pastor Bunyan’s stance?

6. 

   mdorrough

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 12:30pm:

   ---

   I’m sure Dr. Hovind cannot read these blogs for himself, but for those of you who can, I’d like to say a few words.

   I have been quietly reading your blogs and praying for the Hovinds and for those of you who do not personally know the Hovinds but find it easy to criticize them. I worked very closely with both Dr. Hovind and Mrs. Hovind for many years. Although they may have done wrong according to the laws of the lands, I do not believe either of them could be considered to be a danger to the community.

   Mrs. Hovind is one of the most Godly women I know. I have seen her care for the sick and helpless when she was in so much pain that she could hardly stand. Yet, she would stay all night at the hospital with someone (me)who had just had surgery. I’m not the only person that has benefited from her care. I saw her give of herself many times over the years, truly doing what Jesus would do.

   I have seen Dr. Hovind cry when he knew someone was hurting. I’ve seen him cry over someone not quite willing to give their heart to Jesus. I’ve seen him hand over his last dollar to someone who needed it, as Jesus would. The man who wrote this current blog is the Dr. Hovind I know. The one who loves his Lord, loves his family and loves people. I do not know the “money grabbing” person that so many of you seem to think Dr. Hovind is.

   I will continue to pray that God will allow many more people, saved and unsaved, to come to know the Dr. Hovind that I know.

7. 

   Eruan

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 12:50pm:

   ---

   I’m glad to hear that you’re finding ways to serve the Lord in spite (and because of) your current circumstances. Whether you are at fault or the government is (I know that there are people on both sides of the fence here) it seems that you are making the most of it for God.

8. 

   JSM0293

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 1:34pm:

   ---

   Dear Mr. Hovind,

   I wanted to let you know that all of your material is great.

   I have all of your college courses, debates, and seminars.

   I used to belive that I came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago until I started

   watching your material and thinking for myself.

   The Lords Blessings,

   Josh Miller

9. 

   Dana S. Pennington

   Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 2:04pm:

   ---

   You find no difficulty in trusting the Lord with the management of the universe and all the outward creation, and can your case be any more difficult than these, that you need to be anxious about His management of it?
   ~ Hannah Whitall Smith

10. 

    Trifany

    Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 2:52pm:

    ---

    Hello! Our family has been so blessed through the CSE ministry. It has changed our outlook on the Bible, armed our family with answers, and increased our appreciation how incredible our God is. I have been following the IRS issue with the Hovind family. I am saddened to hear of the verdict. No mention was made concerning Mrs Hovind… hopefully she is not in jail too? I appreciate the new perspective of Mr Hovind on jail conditions and inmates. For two years I was part of a Bible study in our local jail for the ladies. I learned to love those ladies like my own sisters. There are so many needy and hurting people in the jail! And if they are interested in God-related things at all, they are so easy to talk to. Because of their situation, they understand perfectly that there are consequences to actions (theirs and/or others). They are also excited to hear that God has provided a solution to their sin-problem! Jail ministry is not always easy, but definitely needed. Not only are the inmates needy, but the jail correctional officers and staff are often just as needy. Some are supportive, and some are not And often religious classes and programs are cut out of the jail schedule because it is an added security issue for the guards. So an inside-jail ministry may be a “God-send” to Escambia County Jail, for now. Religious visitors cannot touch inmates other than a handshake. Often the inmates are starved for “touch” – nothing improper, just a pat on the arm or a “I know how you feel” hug. At least that is how the ladies were; maybe the men are different.

    Our family will continue to lift up the Hovind family and ministry in prayer: that God’s will is done, in God’s timing, for God’s glory; that He will give His peace to each of you in this time, and each of you will grow closer to God in your daily personal relationship with him.

    May you rest in God’s care,
    Coby & Trifany Gibson
    North Pole, Alaska

11. 

    JR Turner

    Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 3:59pm:

    ---

    Please, consider the following for further research.
    ============ ===
    1. “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual in-come tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government”
    -Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan on January 15, 1984
    ============ ===
    2. This is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence —
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
    Don’t spit on the graves of those who sacrificed, fought and died to preserve freedom.
    Don’t bind chains of slavery around the necks of your own children and grandchildren.
    ============ ===
    3. “This [audit] was made extremely difficult because [IRS] existing Systems were not designed to provide reliable financial information… on their operations”.
    -Comptroller Bowsher, Government Accounting Office, on the first-ever audit of the IRS in 1993.
    ============ ===
    4. “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance”.
    -United States Supreme Court in US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187
    ============ ===
    5. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”.
    -Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin
    ============ ===
    6. “Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are US government institutions They are not… they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the U.S. for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will”.
    -Congressman Charles McFadden, Chairman, House Banking and Currency Committee, June 10, 1932
    ============ ===
    7. “Historically, the United States has been a hard money country. Only [since 1913] has the United States operated on a fiat money system. During this period, paper money has depreciated over 87%. During the preceding 140 year period, the hard currency of the United States had actually maintained its value. Wholesale prices in 1913… were the same as in 1787″.
    -Kenneth Gerbino, former chairman of the American Economic Council
    ============ ===
    8. “About all a Federal Reserve note can legally do is wipe out one debt and replace it with itself another debt, a note that promises nothing. If anything’s been paid, the payment occurs only in the minds of the parties…”.
    - Tupper Saussy, author of “The Miracle On Main Street”
    ============ ===
    9. “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.
    - John Maynard Keynes, economist and author of “The Economic Consequences Of The Peace”
    ============ ===
    10. “Inflation has now been institutionalized at a fairly constant 5% per year. This has been determined to be the optimum level for generating the most revenue without causing public alarm. A 5% devaluation applies, not only to the money earned this year, but to all that is left over from previous years. At the end of the first year, a dollar is worth 95 cents. At the end of the second year, the 95 cents is reduced again by 5%, leaving its worth at 90 cents, and so on. By the time a person has worked 20 years, the government will have confiscated 64% of every dollar he saved over those years. By the time he has worked 45 years, the hidden tax will be 90%. The government will take virtually everything a person saves over a lifetime”.
    - G. Edward Griffin, historian and author of “The Creature From Jekyll Island”
    ============ ===
    11. “The Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the agenda of bankers, and they frequently referred to them and their kind as, quote, ‘friends of paper money. They hated the Bank of England, in particular, and felt that even were we successful in winning our independence from England and King George, we could never truly be a nation of freemen, unless we had an honest money system. Through ignorance, but moreover, because of apathy, a small, but wealthy, clique of power brokers have robbed us of our Rights and Liberties, and we are being raped of our wealth. We are paying the price for the near-comatose levels of complacency by our parents, and only God knows what might become of our children, should we not work diligently to shake this country from its slumber! Many a nation has lost its freedom at the end of a gun barrel, but here in America, we just decided to hand it over voluntarily. Worse yet, we paid for the tyranny and usurpation out of our own pockets with “voluntary” tax contributions and the use of a debt-laden fiat currency!”.
    -Peter Kershaw, author of the 1994 booklet “Economic Solutions”
    ============ ===
    12. “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”
    Sir Josiah Stamp – President of the Bank of England in the 1920’s, and the second richest man in Britain.
    ============ ===
    13. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – An act does not make the [doer of it] guilty; that is, unless the intention be criminal. The intent & the act must both occur to constitute a crime.

    ============ ===
    14. “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be
    their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge
    gives.”–James Madison

    ============ ===
    15. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_taxes.html
    A Brief Tax History of America
    John Hancock was probably the leading tax evader in Boston. He was apparently wanted for evading what today would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. He was a very successful merchant and importer, his merchant ships arrived almost daily with goods from abroad, and he hadn’t paid H.M.S. Customs its full tax for decades. Today, we would call him a tax protestor and he would have had a red flag on his tax file. Hancock’s bold signature is a clear reminder that America was founded by tax rebels, and their rebellion eventually gave birth to the United States of America.

    ============ ===
    16. “Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive [it] reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled”.
    President Ronald Reagan, May 1983, Williamsburg, Virginia

    ============ ===
    17. As some are peeking through the bars saying to Kent and Jo, “What are you doing in there?” Kent and Jo are looking back at you and saying “What are you doing out there?”

    ============ ===
    18. “Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.” James Madison, Federalist 45

    ============ ===
    19. When you as a jury can convince one another that all twelve of you fully understand the internal revenue code then and only then are you convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, you are convinced without tangible proof of any written law. What good and just cause can be realized by sending people to prison when no one understands.

    ============ ===
    20. “It ain’t what ya don’t know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin’ on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain’t so.” — Uncle Remus

    ============ ===
    21. “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
    Frederick Douglas 1849
    ============ ===
    22. Let your belief drive you to action!
    If you BELIEVE that Kent and Jo broke a law, then go and find the law that applies to them and post it here for all to see. “Acta Non Verba” – Action Not Words!

    ============ ===
    23. We have all heard it said, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
    Juries must be fully informed to render a true and just verdict. Withholding the written law from the jury is jury tampering. Learn from the American Jury Institute here http://www.fija.org

    ============ ===
    24.“You cannot correct what you are unwilling to confront. What you permit will always continue. Behavior permitted is behavior perpetuated.”
    Mike Murdock
    ============ ===
    25.“…the key question is: can we define ‘income’ in a fair and reasonably straightforward manner? Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in doing so.”
    Shirley Peterson, former IRS Commissioner, April 1993

    ============ ===
    26.”Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the character of its own existence.”
    Justice Brandeis 1928, 277 U.S. 438,485

    ============ ===
    Kent and Jo Hovind are INNOCENT!!!

12. 

    Geocentric Bob

    Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 4:43pm:

    ---

    I pray they give Kent some ear plugs real soon. TV’s blaring is like punishment to the mind.

    I’ve often thought about freedom. As the children of Israel were crossing the Red Sea the Lord must of realized they’d be hungry by the time they got through the waters to the other side. Sure enough he provided something for them. It was Dinosaur prime rib!

    Psalm
    74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
    74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

    He’s always provided. He’ll be there for Kent when he gets through the troubled waters and safely on the other side.

13. 

    selena

    Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 6:07pm:

    ---

    I am so excited to hear an update from Dr.Hovind, and we are so glad to hear he seems to be in good spirits. we continue to pray for his release, and swift resolution to all this. thank you so much for the continued updates, i wish we could visit you in person. please know that many many of us on the west coast are standing beside you and praying for your family! we love your ministry so much, and we pray that God will annoint Eric Hovind and enlarge his ministry as well! We wish you “all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly realms. as Christmas is approaching and Dr. Hovind is behind bars, we will be praying for both him and all your family and thinking of you. It will not be easy! You have had a hard year, and I pray next year will be a much easier,blessed time for all of you.

14. 

    Verna

    Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 8:23pm:

    ---

    Dear Kent,
    I really know that is using you during this difficult time. I will continue to pray for you and your family. God bless you and keep up the good work. Thank you for letting us out here know what we can do to help you in there. I’m glad that the men that you are ministering to get a chance to see a real man of God. Most people in our country havn’t. Much good may come of this. Your outlook is wonderful and God will bless you for preservering.
    In my prayers,
    Verna

15. 

    Verna

    Said this on November 20th, 2006 at 8:35pm:

    ---

    Dear Dr Hovind,
    Glad to hear that you are doing so well. I hurt for you and your family but rejoice for your perservence through this ordeal. I’m glad that since you are there that these hardened men get a chance to see a real man of God. Keep up the fight! Many are praying for you. Thanks for letting us know what we can do to help.
    In Christ’s Love,
    Verna

16. 

    AHayes

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 12:09am:

    ---

    What I still don’t understand is how Dr. Hovind is considered a “flight risk.” I am not an expert in Florida law, as I am not from that state, but is it possible to petition governor Bush for his release until sentencing? After reading the above posts, I am proud to be in the process of joining the Constitution party in the near future. I also sympathize with some Libertarians as well.

17. 

    drx777

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 3:09am:

    ---

    I don’t know much about US tax law nor do I understand the whole case.

    I do know, that Jesus told the jews to pay the tax (denar) to the emperor, although it a denar was pure blasphemy. For the sake of God’s honour: give God what he deservers and give government what God assigned to it. With all it’s fault, God has established government for a short period of time (Rom 13:6). Do not offend anyone but by the gospel. Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

    CSE has done so much good. Let not such a profane thing destroy much of it.

    In Christ,
    David

18. 

    Jenjen

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 9:35am:

    ---

    Hello!

    Just a question or two. Can any one write to the Court? Or do tou have to be an American citicent?

    Be Blessed

    Jenjen

19. 

    webserv

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 12:09pm:

    ---

    Has anyone obtained a copy of the transcript of the trial, I would very much like to read that. Is it posted anywhere yet?

20. 

    rsparks

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 12:15pm:

    ---

    Dr. Hovind,
    Do you see these?
    I work with Frank Zindler. He is an evil man. He is actually gleeful that you are in jail.
    I have tried to debate him, but I simply don’t have the knowledge and skill. He sends me emails that require a PhD in biology to understand. He mentioned about the genome sequence of apes and man being 99.5% similar and that it was proof of evolution. I told him it was only evidence of a common designer.
    I then quoted some scripture to him and he shoots the bible down.
    I believe his heart is so hardened that he is unreachable.
    If you’re interested I can share some of those emails from Frank.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Sparks

21. 

    Ron Denton

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 4:39pm:

    ---

    A note to Keith Sparks (post 12:15 p.m. 21st Nov ). The human genome has been sequenced but not yet mapped in detail. That could take another 20 years.

    Apes were originally thought to be 98½% similar to man, not 99½%. Then it dropped to 97%; then 95%; and is now down to about 92% – and reducing. So your adversary is years out of date and on the losing side!

    As a foreigner (Brit.) I do not understand your justice system. On one hand our brother Kent has been found guilty of breaking a non-existant law, on the other he is considered equally guilty because he followed a perfectly legal practice (withdrawing less than $10,000 at a time). Shades of Ernest P. Worrell, I think, “Is everyone who works around here a moron?”

    We continue to lift the Hovind family to the throne of grace in prayer. Our Heavenly Father will glorify his name in his own way and time.

    May God bless America … only He can sort out the mess the country has got itself in.

22. 

    Lynn Shea Blackmon

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 7:18pm:

    ---

    I know the Hovinds personally from our time together at Longview Baptist Temple in Longview, Texas. It is sad what Kent Hovind has perpetrated on his wife, family, and supporters.

    I just read the blog. What an arrogant, self centered moron! He’s going to teach black drug addicts how to figure how many cubic yards of concrete they need for their driveways? These guys don’t own homes. Their parents didn’t. They’re grandparents didn’t. Their kids won’t. The only concrete they know about are the concrete blocks they live most of their adult lives within.

    Putting the judges and prosecuters in jail with black people will change things? Those animals ought to be forced down a hole and covered up. Nobody needs to hang out at jail to find that out.

    A pillow and socks. You waste our time reading your blog with that? You’re in jail, not the friggin Marriot. But hey, at least you’re getting your wake up call and room service.

    You aren’t a Bible character. There’s no need in us “remembering your bonds.” Soon as I finish writing this, I won’t think of you again until I see another article on the web. You are a nobody who has used trickery, deceit, and outright lies to convince ignorant, well-meaning people that you are smart. You are ignorant, stupid, and your above average intelligence is cancelled by your gross overestimation of your mediocre abilities.

    You asked yourself, “Why did God allow this?” Kent, you know exactly why God DID this. You wrote it on the first line. Admission is the first step. “(1) To receive punishment for my sin.” Discard the other reasons. Fall on your face. You are an arrogant thief and charlatan. The cause of Christ is served by you serving your time. Repent in sackloth and ashes.

    Lynn Shea Blackmon

23. 

    R Campbell

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 8:45pm:

    ---

    Dr. Hovind,

    My brother in Christ. Take heart. Christ is alive and on the Throne! He see’s all and knows all. His plan for you and the CSE Ministry and us all is greater than those bars both physical and spiritual that seem to be hindering right now. Satan really hates it when the truth is being preached. He is going to try and shut up those that bring the truth. But he’s a liar and he’s defeated. By your testimony of lives being touched is evidence of Gods greater power. I will cease not to pray with all deligence for your freedom. God said in His Word that we can call those things that be not as though they were. To say to that mountain be plucked up and removed and it should obey us. Well the mountain is going to have to move!

    You and your Ministry have touched my life in a way that I cannot express. It has motivated me to study more intensely and seek out the truth that is Gods Word. I am continually witnessing to those that will hear about the truth of Gods Creation! He Created and Made all things just as His Word said. His Word does not need our help to fit into some nitch of man. If it were not for God using you and your Ministry I would still be going about believing the lie myself. I would not have the zeal in my heart for Gods truth had it not been for you obeying the call of the Lord. You will come out of there Brother and be restored! Just as Job was restored. More Blessed than one can imagine!

    May God Richly Richly Bless you and your Family and CSE.
    In Christ
    RC

24. 

    R Campbell

    Said this on November 21st, 2006 at 8:55pm:

    ---

    I am Prayinfg For you!

25. 

    Maturekid

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 12:30am:

    ---

    Hello Keith,

    I would tend to doubt Dr. Horvind can see these blogs for a little while unless CSE prints them out and turns them in to the attorney. If I may though I am no where near in the league of Dr. Horvind nor scientists on either side, I might offer some advice and resource.

    First, I’ll express my sympathy that you work with Frank Zindler. From his postings on the Internet, I would recommend not bothering with him. He will gloat and believe he defeated you and your stance but he really isn’t worth the effort. Frank Zindler is part of the American Atheists of Central Ohio. He is a profound antagonist of Christians and anything to do with the Bible. A simple search of his name in Google points that out. He won’t listen so don’t bother. If you don’t have to work with him directly, create a rule in Outlook that sends his messages to Junk Mail and ignore him.

    As for resources, Dr. Horvind actually answers a lot of this in layman’s terms on his DVD’s and tapes. I believe #4 will give you his examples regarding percentage similarities. The most important point comes straight from Dr. Horvind in many of his debates, seminars, etc. Both Creationism and Evolution are a system of beliefs used to interpret the facts we see before us. Zindler will contend Creationism isn’t Science. By his definitions, neither is macro-Evolution. Nearly all of the topics brought up for either argument will be hotly contested by the other side. Basic searches on Google will bring up the arguments (try pseudogenes for one). Quite simply, we humans really don’t know that much. It is an amazing world and universe and we don’t know the half of it.

    Let’s help who we can help. Pray for those who need it especially the Horvind’s in this time of trial. Great to hear God is using Dr. Horvind in His mysterious ways! Hang in Dr. Hovind & Mrs. Horvind, God’s got a plan and we’re supporting you too. Thanks for your service to God.

    God Bless

26. 

    pienkzuit

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 6:11am:

    ---

    I’d think long and hard about reason 1, and stop trying to make excuses like reasons 2 – 18.

27. 

    campsuz

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 6:13am:

    ---

    I appreciate your keeping us updated so much. I appreciate how you are living faithfully and with a thankful heart in difficult circumstances. I praise God for the good you are doing in prison. We are praying for you and will send a letter in support of you.
    We love you a great deal.

28. 

    markosll

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 10:49am:

    ---

    Hi everyone,

    I direct this message to “Lynn Shea Blackmon”. Two words – “WAKE UP!”
    You don’t exactly paint a good picture of yourself. In fact, you seem to be THE arrogant, misinformed, hot headed person on this blog in my opinion. Not to mention your hatred for black people. Hmmm…smells of…racism!!!
    You are making a fool out of yourself Lynn. I also sense a feeling of jealousy you have for Dr Hovind.
    Let me just say, you know nothing, you aren’t a christian (your message proves it to me), you border on being pathetic and worse than the people you so boldly and arrogantly criticize! You are gloating in your own presumed “superior intelligence”, and you are way off, for all your well connected neurons.
    You just don’t catch the picture do you? Dr Hovind is innocent, that is fact!

    So get lost and join some weird cult religion where all your “wonderful” insight could possibly be used to boost your own ego even higher.

    God Bless!
    Dr Hovind and family and all at CSE, may God bless you too and help you all through this. I am praying for all of you.

    Mark

29. 

    Geocentric Bob

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 11:30am:

    ---

    If “Lynn of Longview” is a real Christian then note how one does the work of Satan by their words. Those who will follow the fine venomous example of “Lynn of Longview” will find it easy to accuse and character assasinate. God even allows Satan to get his way sometimes to test the faithful – Job proved it.

    If there are more out there who agree with Lynn of Longwood’s venom and you believe your such an upstanding pillar of faith, then your fallen already even if your not in jail.

    Pillar’s Fall.

30. 

    selena

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 11:36am:

    ---

    To Lynn Shea Blackmon

    I don’t think I have ever heard a more depressing and racist attitude in my life!! Do you think you are better than those black kids in prison with Dr. Hovind?? Do you think you are worth redemption more than they are? How do you know they don’t have driveways, or never will?? You don’t!! for all you know, you may end up working for one of them someday. It is never too late to better yourself, to learn from your mistakes, and it certainly is never ever too late to turn to Christ, unless, of course, you are dead. there are more than one ways of being dead, and I think you must be dead. By that I mean you are mean spirited, cruel, judgemental and insensitive! How sad if the parents of one of those people in prison were to read this, and hear the low opinion you have of them. you talk like they donot have value. I think it is awesome that Dr. Hovind is someone they feel they can reach out to. If you are so quick to condemn him, I would ask you, WHAT ARE YOU DOING to make someones life better?? sure they are criminals, but isnt it better that they become Christians in prison, then continue the behavior when they get out? Glory be to God Most High that His mercy and grace does not depend on your approval!!

31. 

    selena

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 11:42am:

    ---

    I would also add, to Lynn Shea Blackmon: do you think you have to be a bible character to ask someone to “remember my bonds?” You really are a foolish person! there are many many christians around the world in prison for no reason other than hatred of people like you. and then bible plainly says we are to remember those in prison. It does not say to judge them, kick them while they are down, etc I pray that you will come face to face with compassionate people who will reach out to you and hopefully introduce you to Christ. And I pray most of all, if you ever find yourself in a situation similiar to this where you need hope, help, compassion, that God will put someone like Dr. Hovind right there with you, to reach out to you, to give you hope, and certainly to believe in you, and your future. God bless you!

32. 

    rsparks

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 12:06pm:

    ---

    Maturekid and Ron Denton,
    Thanks for your notes.
    I’ve already decided that I’ll not debate Frank any longer. Here’s the latest example of his email to me:

    “Keith,

    I don’t know if you normally read the New York Times or not, but today’s issue has a front-page article about Svante Paabo’s efforts to sequence the Neanderthal genome. Already the findings are proving of great help in understanding the evolutionary relations between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. You may remember that Kent used to spread the disproved notion that “Neanderthal Man” was just an ordinary human suffering from arthritis in damp caves. This ignored, of course, the fact that almost 100 different Neanderthal remains are known and only a few of them suffered from arthritis. (Many cave bears also suffered from arthritis.)

    Already several years ago, study of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal fossils showed they were not the same as any known race of modern humans. Now, preliminary sequencing indicates their total DNA is 99.5% the same as humans, putting them neatly between humans and the other African apes.

    It now is clear that humans differ from apes by as few as 100 different genes. In most cases, our proteins are identical, and it appears that it is gene regulation differences that make the man instead of the ape. Seeing how Neanderthal matches up with the chimp and humans will greatly help figure out the microevolutionary changes that humanized our primate ancestors. As I said before, there now is no excuse for not accepting the reality of evolution.

    On another note: today’s issue of NATURE has an article on a fossil Devonian fish from Australia that further elucidates the transition from water to land and the origins of tetrapod vertebrates (including us). Added to the exciting find of Tiktaalik last year, we now have enough connecting links to see quite well how this truly macroevolutionary transition took place and begin to understand why it happened.

    Hope you’re having a good day.

    Frank”

    I don’t work with Frank in any capacity. We are only employed at the same place. I read his emails out of curiosity, but I no longer respond to him. Every argument I offer, he shoots down. Here’s an example of a rebuttal to scripture.
    “It is actually rather amusing that you cite 2 Peter. Biblical scholars all know that this “book” is a forgery, written long after the time Saint Peter would have lived if, in fact, he might have been an historical personage. The book almost didn’t make it into the Christian Bible because it quotes from non-biblical, apocryphal sources. It got into the final Western canon because of theopolitical reasons, not because of any evidence that it was authentic. (I have written several articles about the bible that you might find stimulating.)”

    I still have the emails from Frank, if you’re interested.

    Keith

33. 

    Jenjen

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 3:58pm:

    ---

    Hey!

    Is there any one who can answer my question. Can I as a none american write to the Court on the Hovinds account? Or is it only people recident in America who can write? I pray for the Lords will to be done, His name to be glorified. But I want to know if there is any thing else I can do to help out.

34. 

    chaplaindoug

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 5:08pm:

    ---

    I am not amazed that brother Hovind is in jail as a conscientious objector. I am amazed that he is one of only a handful of men who are actually standing against tyranny in this land of ours. 99.9% (and this is not hyperbolic) of Christians in America consider it persecution if they have to share a room while being banqueted, petted, and indulged on a “retreat” weekend.

    We are so heavily compromised that when a Kent Hovind comes along, he appears as a kook, just as I suppose John Bunyan, John Hus, and others appeared to their contemporaries who were wed to the world. Thank you brother Hovind for paving the way for others who will surely follow if they wish to remain true to God’s upward call.

35. 

    mdorrough

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 7:21pm:

    ---

    To Lynn Shea Blackmon – I believe that you “know of” the Hovinds, but that you do not personally “know” them as I (and many others) do. For if you did, you would know that Kent Hovind does not see the color of a man’s skin the way you do. I have seen him take collect telephone calls from prisoners, both black and white, day after day. He would spend hours sometimes talking to them about the Lord. If you did not read my original post, please, go back and read it. Dr. Hovind has a kind heart. I believe that he would even be kind to you after the way you have spoken of him.

    My question to you, Lynn, is this: Have you never failed or sinned? Just because a man may be black and in prison for drug dealing other crimes, doesn’t mean that he does’t need Jesus. In fact, he needs Jesus more. If you are truly a Christian, Lynn, think about this: One day, when we get to Heaven to see our Lord and Savior, there will be many saints there who were once black (or white) lost drug dealers (or other criminals) that will then be wearing robes of white because they, too, have been purchased by the blood of the Lamb.

    I am not perfect, I fall short as a Christian every day that I live. However, I have talked with many of the prisoners that Dr. Hovind so often talked with, and many of them talked of their love for Jesus so freely that I was ashamed that I did so little to show my Love for Jesus.

    With a broken heart for you, I am praying that God will soften your heart towards your fellow man for they are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

    To Jenjen, I’m sure you can probably write to the court, but there is no guarantee that the letter will be read or considered.

36. 

    Reed Orak

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 8:09pm:

    ---

    Keith/rsparks,

    Your friend Frank sounds like a very intelligent guy. Maybe he’s onto something. Don’t shut out his reasoning just because you don’t like the conclusions that follow from it.

    -Reed Orak

37. 

    mastersonix

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 8:21pm:

    ---

    SOME INSIGHT ON SIN #1:

    Sin is when you realize you are doing something wrong. If you are not aware you are doing something wrong, it’s not sin. Kent did not commit a sin by standing up for what he believed was right. He only feels guilty now because he’s humble about his conviction.

    Adam and Eve commited a sin by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil BECAUSE they were told not to in advance. Kent did not believe he was disobeying the law.

    He should not be guilty for something he was not aware of. Furthermore, he probably still is right and he’ll win in the end when he appeals to the Supreme court and he’ll make a pivotal turning point in our country.

    He is a freedom fighter!

38. 

    MikeFNQ

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 9:29pm:

    ---

    Wild and crazy idea… Kent could admit his crimes, do the time, cooperate with the authorities in paying the taxes he has avoided, and then rejoin society. That would be the honest Christian thing to do wouldn’t it?

39. 

    In Him

    Said this on November 22nd, 2006 at 10:34pm:

    ---

    Dr. Hovind and Jo

    I have been very blessed by your ministry over the years. When we were really “down on our luck” we felt free to copy your Creation Evangelism Tapes. You said so yourself in the introductions! Over the years we enjoyed them ourselves and passed them on to others. This last Christmas, as the Lord blessed us, I purchased the whole new series on DVD and quite a few other resources as well. Last week I had the privilege of again passing along the 1st DVD in the Creation series to a karate instructor..his reaction….”GREAT…can I borrow it for the whole week because my kids came in while it was on and were facinated and now they want to watch it too!”

    Perhaps the people you are in jail with, Dr. Hovind, would never go and talk to a scientist at Dino Adventureland. So…God brought the scientist to them. It’s all good!…ok, so maybe I’m not the one in jail..but there are many bonds and prisons in this life. Our life here is so very short; our lives belong to Him and I want to encourage you with the thought that you are exactly where God wants you, at this very moment. I work in a dangerous community among those who are headed to jail or just being released. So far, I have never feared for my safety because I know I am where I am, IN HIM. If I am no longer safe and my life is taken, then I will be “safely Home!” So, it’s all good!

    By the way, have you read the book, “Safely Home” by Randy Alcorn? It just put alot into perspective for me. My life is really not my own, it’s His. He is the potter and I am the clay. Sometimes these disturbances in our routine can be like God taking the sandpaper to our sharp edges and making us more like Him. Be of good cheer for He has overcome the world and all that is in it. Rest in Him!

40. 

    thomas

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 4:24am:

    ---

    Are you guys crazy? He took our money pretending to do the Lord’s work and really he was just lining his own pockets. His museaum is going to be great and will help bring others to the Lord but we are better off with someone who remembers all 10 of the Commandments.

41. 

    Samphire

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 7:59am:

    ---

    A typical Hovindism:

    “4. Dr. David Gibbs, Jr. preached a great sermon nearly thirty years ago about Pastor John Bunyon in England refusing to take a license to preach and spending thirteen years in the Bedford County jail for it. While he was there, he wrote, “Pilgrim’s Progress.” David Gibbs, III, his son, testified that all church ministries should contract with the government by becoming 501 (c) (3). Being 501 (c) (3) is taking a government license to have a church ministry. The second law of thermodynamics applies to things other than matter.”

    The Second Law does not apply to matter but to the ability of heat to do work.

    As for John Bunyan (not Bunyon), he wrote The Pilgrims Progress whilst imprisoned in the town jail (not the County Jail) for preaching without a licence unlike Mr.H. who has been banged up for conspiring with his wife to deliberately evade bank reporting requirements as well as for failing to pay tax. There is a moral difference between being imprisoned for preaching one’s religious beliefs and being imprisoned for being a crook; unfortunately, preaching bad science is not a federal crime.

42. 

    Maturekid

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 8:14am:

    ---

    Jenjen,

    An attorney in US trial law could answer better. Could a non-USA citizen write to the Courts on the account someone, likely that would be yes. Would it have any bearing on the outcome? Likely, no. Unless you can make a dazzling legal defense case based on US law and the details of the case, (which only the attorneys, the Horvinds and the judge & jury know) the most you could hope for is speaking to the character of the Horvinds when it comes to determining the length of sentencing. If they were to only get parole as a sentencing, that would be the best potential outcome outside of a higher court overturning it in the appeals process.

    As much as many would like to help, the best help is what Dr. & Mrs. Hovind have already asked for prayers, support, and letters. However…if you read the material provided in the link supplied above by Millerfamily6 on Nov20 at 11:50am, there are some government offices (Governor of Florida to be specific) where letters could produce an outcome. The Horvinds are peaceful people minding their own business and speaking up for what they believe in. If it ruffles the feathers of some, that’s American freedom of speech so deal with it. Government should let them live in peace as the Hovinds are not infringing on the unalienable Rights of others.

    Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    God Bless!

43. 

    devilsadvocate

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 12:21pm:

    ---

    What a load of utter nonsense. This Hovind lunatic is a convicted felon, not some mystically endowed missionary.
    You idiots treating him as some kind of saintly hero is nauseating. You should have more self-respect.

    Hovind, I hope you rot in jail for decades. I also hope you make friends with Bubba, the well endowed cell mate and have to pick up his soap in the shower.

    As to the rest of the blathering : some facts…..

    Creationism or it’s nom-de-guerre, “Intelligent Design”, is absolute rubbish.
    The earth is billions of years old, not 6000.
    Evolution happened and is happening – we just don’t know all the ins and outs yet. Irreducible complexity is a facade for the ignorance of non scientists and the hard-of-thinking. I bet you’re all ready to accept that DNA profiling works, and tests for Down’s syndrome and other genetic problems are valid – well, they all spring directly from evolutionary theory. How about vaccines for diseases? The shifting nature of Flu viruses? You can’t pick and choose.

    The bible is a load of self-contradictory rubbish cobbled together by a bunch of deluded hypocrites over a period of hundreds of years.
    Genesis in particular is a kiddies tale, not a historical record.

    Now, get a grip, you people. You don’t need myths, legends, superstition and sky-fairies to live your life. Stand up on your two feet and start thinking instead of parrotting 200 year old twaddle.

    By the way. Did you know that there are over 2000 gods around the world? Beleiving in only one of them makes you 99.9% atheist. Why not remove that last, tiny percentage?

    I’m betting that this post gets deleted because you lot can’t take dissenting opinions.

44. 

    tharsos

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 12:34pm:

    ---

    We will be praying for you Dr. Hovind!

45. 

    gail

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 4:54pm:

    ---

    Isn’t anyone else disturbed that Hovind is comparing himself to real martyrs who were jailed for their belief in Jesus Christ? He wasn’t arrested for defending his faith, he tried to get away with cheating on his taxes. How can you compare that to those brave souls who were willing to suffer as witness to their faith?

46. 

    kcpriest

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 7:57pm:

    ---

    The comments about noise, socks, pillow, and inmate resourcefulness are absolutely true, but they do not begin to describe the actual situation. There are many more hardships and serious physical danger while being incarcerated. My son, who got saved in jail (PTL!), just spent over a year in a facility like the one housing Dr. Hovind. Please be sure not to focus on Dr. Hovind’s description of the hot water, etc. and fail to pray fervently for him. Our prayers are extremely important. I know God’s is in control and I look forward to the results that we shall see as Dr. Hovind undergoes this ordeal and is finally released.

    Also–the letters supporting Dr. Hovind are vital! PLEASE write on his behalf.

47. 

    Nezu

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 8:05pm:

    ---

    It saddens me that Mr. Hovind was found guilty of breaking laws willingly and knowingly. What is our country coming to when claiming ignorance despite evidence to the contrary doesn’t get you off? How dare they not accept that he didn’t PURPOSELY slip under the reporting limit for transactions not once, but 44 times? That he didn’t KNOW it would get around large transactions getting checked? And who is the government to say that failing to report employees and instead trying to circumvent employement taxes by claiming said employees as “missionaries” is blatently and obviously an attempt to break the law? Mr. Hovind is obviously innocent on all counts! This was clearly proven in court. He needs to be freed immediately in order to once more take up his lifelong task of misrepresenting the stance science has on evolution, and to make quite a bit of money doing so. What will people do when they’re forced to think for themselves instead of having him tell them what they should believe(not think as that is, of course, a bad thing to do)?

    P.S. I find it amusing that at least one supporter of Mr. Hovind can’t even spell the mans name correctly.

48. 

    WU

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 8:53pm:

    ---

    Jenjen:
    Yes, you can send letters to Mr. Hovind from outside the US. Send to:
    Kent Hovind #135733
    G2O*O*03
    P.O. Box 17800
    Pensacola, FL 32522-7789
    United States

    Keith:
    That guy Frank needs some major help, hence I suggest you stay in touch with him and debate him to the best of your ability. You very well may be the ONLY person defending creationism to him. God may use you to be the one to turn him around.

    Pienkzuit:
    And what have you done with your life, you little nobody?

    Lynn Shea Blackmon:
    Get ready to be famous. Watch for your name to be used as an example of the ignorant people in this world in a upcoming film. I guess you’ll be first in line to receive the RHID.

    Everybody else/supporters:
    DO SOMETHING!! Write letters, make phone calls, talk to friends, family, strangers, get involded. The greatest power on earth, is the mass voice of the people!

    -Caleb

49. 

    Nehemiah Jeon

    Said this on November 23rd, 2006 at 10:25pm:

    ---

    I pray everything for God’s glory and His will. I thank Dr. Hovind, my most admiring person of the century, for his influence on me. God bless all of you who are praying as well as Dr. Hovind’s family and the ones who work in the ministry.

    Ah,.. We’re soldiers under God’s command.

    Lord BLESS YOU ALL!

50. 

    Devolution

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 8:57am:

    ---

    I printed your letter out and will insist on reading it Sunday at church. I am praying for you and will get as many as I can to pray for you also.

51. 

    Ron025

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 10:26am:

    ---

    Good Evening Mr Hovind,

    I do not understand the laws in your country or what the whole case is really about. What I do know is that your work, eg. The Seminar Series, is a brilliant evangelism tool. I know of no other work like it and to be honest I pray there were more tools like it. The only encouragement I can give you is this Sunday afternoon a friend of mine (also a Brother in The Lord) and myself will be handing out your “Age of the Earth” dvd freely to all that will listen and accept one in our city. We have produced and handed out ~ one thousand so far and Lord willing will continue to do so. You and your family and your Ministry are in my prayers.

    Matthew 5 Verse 11,12
    Romans 5 Verse 3-5
    James 1 Verse 2-4

    John 8 Verse 7

    Ron.
    A believer on The Lord Jesus Christ

52. 

    leisa

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 11:12am:

    ---

    Our family will continue to keep praying for Dr. Hovind & his whole family, I hope everyone whose lives have been changed by Dr. Hovind will send letters to the court.PLEASE,PLEASE write your letters today!Dr. Hovind changed my family life! When Dr. Hovind came to Ruston,LA. and my sons went to hear his word it changed them forever,my boys share his words to everyone they meet,they make copies of tapes for school teachers,other families and friends, to all who will listen.They have changed the way others teach and share GOD’S WORD.Klay & Jay are only 17 & 22 years of age,they are true followers of JESUS CHRIST, I’m so proud to be their MOM!Thanks Dr. Hovind for eveything you have and will do for GOD…
    We Love you,
    leisa

53. 

    DrJoe

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 11:35am:

    ---

    To Lynn,
    The grace of God will allow your vicious and mean-spirited, pious, hateful, hippocritcal comment to advance the vindication of Dr. Hovind, especially among those of us who, unlike yourself, truly know the character of this godly man.
    Remembering his bonds in prayer with love and gratitude for his integrity,
    Dr. Joe

54. 

    JR Turner

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 1:51pm:

    ---

    What a country!!! People like Abbas Nejat can get away with murder and more but Kent and Jo are expected to sit in jail.

    KnoxNews

    URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_5155060,00.html
    Noncitizen criminals triggering questions
    By Associated Press
    November 19, 2006

    NASHVILLE – Deporting criminals who are citizens of other countries sounds like a no-brainer, but what happens when their home countries won’t take them back?
    Abbas Nejat, an Iranian citizen, shot a man in a south Nashville bar and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Local officials thought he would be deported, but after Iran refused to take him, immigration authorities released the 24-year-old and he returned to Music City.

    Nejat’s case is not unique. Iranians, Cubans and many Palestinians who are ordered deported from the United States cannot be returned to their homelands, experts said, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled they cannot be held indefinitely.

    “There are countries that will not provide travel documents for their citizens to be returned,” said Temple Black of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Nejat has been arrested eight times since February 2002 and is on probation for burglary and drug charges. He struck a plea deal on the manslaughter charge and was given five years’ probation and the year in jail that he had already served, court records show.

    “He is deported,” said Rehim Babaoglu, a Memphis-based immigration attorney. “He’s just paroled temporarily out into society right now … but he can never get a green card.”

    Local officials said they were upset Nejat was not deported, but the worst part is that federal authorities did not tell them he would be released.

    “The problem I’m seeing,” said Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Steve Dozier, “is you can’t get (federal immigration officials) to cooperate with us – when they deport, who they deport and at what point they deport. We’re in the dark.”

    Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights reserved.
    Want to use this article? Click here for options!

    Copyright 2006, KnoxNews. All Rights Reserved.

55. 

    subitaneous

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 1:59pm:

    ---

    Kent

    I know that the Lord will use you greatly. Remember that His will is perfect. This reminds me of Philip in Acts chapter 8. He was doing various things for God’s good and in verse 26 there was a brand new plan for him. Many times along the way the Lord will interrupt what we are doing for something different. Something we might have not necessarily have considered doing. Sometimes we cant see the reason and other times we can.

    Surely the Lord has you here to reach many that have otherwise havent heard the Word or message of the Gospel. I had a bad attitude and probably a poor view of Christians until i had stumbled on your program by what many would say “pure chance”. I call it God’s will. That was five years ago. Thank you for your obidence to God. It impacted me that day and now i am walking with Christ.

    I pray the Lord richly blesses you, your family, your friends and those you encounter beyond abundance. In Jesus name i pray. AMEN!

    You are in my prayers.

    In Christ

    Brian

56. 

    AlainaJ

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 5:25pm:

    ---

    Reading Mr. Hovind’s entry is wonderful. I am so glad he is doing well. One day all true beleivers will have to make the same choice. To fololw Jesus- or the beast. I encourage everyone to watch Freedom to Fascism. You will see what our country has become. How far will the government go to take away our rights? I read that Mr. Hovind had private property including all his guns seized before the trial. I hope everyone can see that our bill of rights is gone. No one is secure in the possessions or have any right to privacy. The government will do anything, take anything or say anything. It is corrucpt to the core.

    I beleive that we like Mr. Hovind all face this choice. Just think in 1963 when the Supreme Court banned prayer in the public schools- Where were the Christians? Why did they not rise up and say NO! Why did they say what Paul said in the book of Acts- I must speak the name of Jesus and speak it loudly.

    If you ever read old supreme court opinions, God and Christian principles is used quite often. In 1892 in the court case of Church of The Holy Trinity V U.S.- The Supreme Court stated America was a Christian nation. What has happened? The one world government- the false religions of the beast have taken over. A god/state has been formed. You either obey and worship it or face the punishment.

    May we pray for Mr. Hovind and all pray for the strength if we must face the same situation.

    In Christ-
    AlainaJ

57. 

    campsuz

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 9:08pm:

    ---

    Selena,

    Lynn Shea Blackmon seems to be a person who lies about who they are… this is a person who creates several ‘identities’ in order to deceive and wound people. Nothing that Lynn Shea Blackmon says can be trusted. I found at least one website that has banned Lynn Shea Blackmon from posting on their website because of the wicked comments left.
    http://www.fundamentalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2905

    I hope Lynn Shea Blackmon will be banned from commenting on this website as well. The comments do only harm and detract from the purpose of the website… honest discussion and encouragement. There is nothing honest about that person.

    Suzanne

58. 

    turtlejs

    Said this on November 24th, 2006 at 9:26pm:

    ---

    To Jenjen:

    I’m pretty sure there’s no law that says you may not write on behalf of the Hovinds, as a non-American citizen. Any positive letter you write will do nothing but good. There’s no harm in writing one, whether it’s accepted or not.
    Hope this helps!

59. 

    janvier

    Said this on November 25th, 2006 at 7:11am:

    ---

    It was shock when I received the sad news of Brother Hovind behind bars. However, The Lord is good and always faithfull, because everything works for good for those who love and serve Him. When I was in Africa, there was a chorus we sung in one of the local languages that goes as “Trials on way are to comfirm you’re on the right track, and after every one of them is a good harvest”. Why would I say such a thing? Because every kingdom fights its “threats” to stand!!

    My only words of encouragement to Dr Dino, and other readers is that MIGHTIER IS HE WHO’S IN US THAN he WHO’S IN THE WORLD. At the Cross Satan thought he had it all because he got Jesus down, little did he realize his time had indeed come to an end!!

    GOD BE WITH US ALL.

60. 

    cgrace

    Said this on November 25th, 2006 at 8:08am:

    ---

    Hey JenJen,

    Just write him!!! It will only take a minute. Our postal system (while I am not an expert) will deliver your letter as long as you have proper postage, just remember to send it to cse first. GOD Bless!

    GOD bless Bro. Hovind!!! Thanks so much for the encouragement over the years. I can’t begin to tell you all how GOD has used you in my life! Even in jail you are an encouragement. And yes I remember your bonds daily. I am beseeching the FATHER an your behalf, HE is worthy!!!!!!!!!!!!

61. 

    tharsos

    Said this on November 25th, 2006 at 9:58am:

    ---

    “Bible plainly says we are to remember those in prison.”
    I am forced to say Amen to this:)

    On the side note: Why do the opponents of Hovind always show so much irrational hatred towards him? I don’t see any rational arguments.

62. 

    JesusIsLord

    Said this on November 25th, 2006 at 7:38pm:

    ---

    Dear Dr Kent Hovind,

    2 weeks ago I went down with a Virus, and the doctor signed me off work, so while I was at home that week resting (surfing the web) I came accross your creation science website, so I downloaded all your severn video’s and watched them while I was off that week (what a blessing and help those talks have been to me). The following Sunday I invited one of my Christian friends round after the evening service to watch the video, and then a week later the friend I showed sent me a link about this whole tax issue.

    This may sound a little sloppy, but I have really warmed to your personality and charcther, I love the way you preach, the sincerity and warm heartenedess, not to mention your boldness and good sense of humour, and ever since hearing this very sad news from an earthly perspective, I have just felt like crying and wanting to come over to the US to give you a visit in prison and to assure you of my prayers….

    I’m really pleased to read your blog, especially to see how God is using you in prison to win souls to Christ, but not only that, to show real Christian love by given them an education which those prisoners get really excited about. Again, I’m just so sadderned by the news, it really has broken my heart!

    It’s 1:34am, so ought to be in bed, but just finished watching you debate Dr Michael Shermer on google video’s! Please be assured that I will make excellent use of your ministry, and will distribute and even have links to it on my website: http://www.waynebowser.co.uk

    I haven’t had chance to search the site out, but is there an address that I can write to you at brother? will be praying for you and your wife and family and may you be truly comforted by God’s love and peace… I read the letter of Jonah this morning for my devotion, chapter 4 is amazing! full of the gracious characther of God…

    God bless you brother…..

63. 

    Devolution

    Said this on November 25th, 2006 at 9:58pm:

    ---

    Brother Hovind’s letter from prison is truly inspirational. I will be reading it in church this sunday in the hope of filling Heaven’s “in-box” with prayers for him. Below is a copy of an email I sent to Pat Robertson.

    “Millions of Years Never Happened

    To Brother Robertson: I heard a comment on a video stream about asteroids in which you said “about 350 million years ago an asteroid formed Chesapeake Bay”. I thought you were a Christian. I thought you believed the Bible. What are you doing spouting that evolutionist propaganda. The Bible clearly states the Earth is only about 6000 years old. It wouldn’t’ suprise me if they taught evolution at Liberty University. How about a little faith here. You need to go back to school. See drdino.com, icr.org, creationscience.com, aswersingenesis.com, and get a clue; you, Dr.Dobbson, John Hagee, Billy Graham,etc. are doing more harm than good believing something that there is not one scrap of evidence for and has caused millions of deaths in the last two hundred years. Evolution is the religion of antiChrist, duh! God bless you with more wisdom.

64. 

    Ooblog » Blog Archive » Hovind Prison Update

    Said this on November 25th, 2006 at 10:36pm:

    ---

    [...] On Monday, a new post appeared on Kent Hovind’s weblog, describing life in jail. As you might expect, he plays the Christian persecution card. He also has a list of reasons God allowed him to be sent to jail. Oddly enough, neither “I’m guilty” nor “there are no gods” is on the list. [...]

65. 

    OahuSheer

    Said this on November 26th, 2006 at 6:47am:

    ---

    Aloha, All.

    I won’t be as long-winded, as normal, this time, I promise.

    We love you, Hovinds and CSE staff. We continue to pray for your well-being and a quick end to this current tribulation that you all are facing.

    As far as Lynn of Longview, and her ilk, bigoted presumptions and self-righteousness are always ugly to behold, and you would seem to need a self-check on your own soul’s standing with the Lord…but, we’ll still pray for you, as well.

66. 

    Donahue12inChrist

    Said this on November 26th, 2006 at 9:58pm:

    ---

    To Jenjen:

    Write

    To The Hovinds and CSE:
    My father was often picked up on the 501 c 3 account for…….street preaching.That was in the 60’s-70’s. We’re with you and praying for you along with the Llyn Shea Blackmons you are touching. I hope you’ve gotten those socks:),

    I read your update to my mother who’s been cool towards some of your humor, but she was warmed by the emotion and lemonade-making abilities you displayed.

    He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it… until the day of Jesus Christ.

    Love, the Donahues

67. 

    tcjhall

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 2:26am:

    ---

    Dear Dr. Hovind:

    We appreciate hearing from you via this blog. We appreciate you and the CSE Ministry very much – it’s taught us to believe in EVERY WORD in the Bible.

    I am not a tax expert nor lawyer so I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong in this matter, but for sure, Dr Hovind, you ARE being persecuted by the IRS!!!

    In Florida they are holding a man who CONFESSED to killing little Jessica Lunsford (repeatedly raped and buried alive) – with the posibility of his being released because of a legal technicality – and his low-life relatives that were present in the trailer when all this happened and surely knew what was going on – have not been charged for what-ever reason.. and there are many other cases in Florida (as reported on by the media) where serious crimes against children have been committed and the men released or given a few months or less of jail time…..

    ….and Dr Hovind and his wife are up against a combined 500+ years in jail for taking money out of their own bank account? What is wrong with this picture?

    To “Lynn of Longview” – you should be ashamed! I think you should have listened closer to Dr Hovind’s message.

    To Jen Jen: YES! Write your letter! The court should know just how many people around the world respect Dr Hovind (and his wife and family) and appreciate his Ministry.

    I had the pleasure of sitting down and visiting with Dr Hovind after one of his seminars in Panama Beach, Florida. He was friendly, answered my questions clearly, and showed his love of the Lord with every word. He truly wants everyone to be saved and I believe God will use him in this particular situation. We have shared our DVD Seminars with many of our friends – and our church showed the series over a period of weeks as part of our bible study lessons.

    May God Bless you Dr Hovind and the CSE Ministry! We continue to keep you in our prayers.

    Jodie Hall
    Oregon

68. 

    jachu2

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 6:59am:

    ---

    Dear Brother Hovind and CSE,
    I am so sorry to hear what happened to Kent Hovind. Does anyone know what will happen to the Creation Science Hour, will it still be run?
    I was getting happy, because i may have went to see Hovinds lecture but now i think it’s too late. Is there anyway we can contact Kent, did he take his laptop to prison.
    I hope Kent Hovind gets out soon,
    Jamie

69. 

    JerryD

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 9:29am:

    ---

    Sounds like the makings of a very powerful true-life book or movie….Wrongly jailed minister brings Christ and compassion to other inmates. The story alone will help bring many more to Christ. Maybe that is the purpose of Dr. Hovind’s new mission?

70. 

    mbtrump

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 10:22am:

    ---

    Does Dr. Hovind have a tv with either a vcr or dvd?

71. 

    arensb

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 12:47pm:

    ---

    mfox:

    Please name one point of “bad science” which you believe Dr. Hovind espouses.

    How about the claim that cancer is a vitamin deficiency, curable with laetrile?

    Or that conservation of momentum (across the universe) means that all planets should be rotating the same way?

    Just to name two.

72. 

    amigas

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 1:26pm:

    ---

    Dear Devilsadvocate:

    You spouted some of your beliefs without any supporting evidence. Claiming something as fact because you believe it does not make it fact (yes I understand that goes both ways). The Bible has not been disproven although many choose not to believe what it says. If you would like to debate in a proper manner, refraining from name calling and the like, you can email me at amigas@charterinternet.com to debate without tying up this blog.

    PS:We lot do not mind disagreement or conflicting opinions with our own. It helps us research and study to know better what we believe. I will admit the my beliefs are based upon my interpretation of the data, can you admit that yours is a belief also.

    To Christian Bloggers:

    Please respond to negative bloggers in a Christlike manner. Christians are the only Christ people see.

    Tax Info:
    Read IN CAESARS GRIP by Peter Kershaw, also HUSH MONEY by Peter Kershaw (He may be co-author on this one).

    General:
    Dr. Hovind’s material has been a life-changer for me. I was an ineffective christian before viewing Dr. Hovind’s DVD’s in Sunday night services over a several week period. I believe Dr. Hovind to be a totally committed man of God doing what he believes is correct according to Scripture and to our constitution. I will continue to support him and his ministry with prayer and finances.

    Thanks for reading
    Gene

73. 

    Samphire

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 1:48pm:

    ---

    MFox wrote

    “Samphire,

    Please name one point of “bad science” which you believe Dr. Hovind espouses. I only ask this because I do not think you know what you are talking about. I would like the opportunity to clear things up for you.

    So, please select, in your view, the most outrageous scientific claim of Dr. Hovind and we will investigate. Are you game or do you just like to shoot off your e-mouth.”

    If we can keep the discourse civilised then I shall be happy to engage with you. It is difficult to know which single example to give – there is such an enormous harvest. However, let’s keep it very, very simple, the sort of thing that a fourteen year old could shoot down because he would have learned the basics at school and proved them for himself by experiment using no more equipment than a heat source, a glass bottle, a thermometer and a manometer:-

    In one video on the birth of the universe Mr.H said the following (I am not quoting verbatim). “The galaxies could not have formed from dust and gas because Boyle’s Law states that when gas is compressed it gets hot and expands and the heat would therefore stop the gases condensing to form stars”.

    Firstly, Boyle’s Law has nothing to do with temperature but deals with the relationship of the volume of a certain amount of gas to its pressure in a closed system.

    Secondly, Boyle’s Law has nothing to do with dust.

    Thirdly, he probably confused Boyle’s Law with Charles’s Law.

    Jacques Charles investigated the relationship between the volume of a gas and how it changes with temperature. He noted that the volume of a gas increased with its temperature at a given pressure. However, in space, heat generated when a body of gas is compressed can be radiated away allowing it to condense under its own gravitational attraction. So Mr H’s view on why a galaxy could not form has no basis in science – even schoolboy science. As somebody who claims to have an IQ in excess of 160 and to have taught science for over 15 years, such an error is lamentable.

    Would you like a further 1,000 examples or is this one sufficent – how about the rate of recession of the moon or the degradation of the speed of light? Perhaps the alleged deposition of occolith biomicrites to form 1,000s of feet of chalk cliffs during the brief period of “Noah’s flood”?

    Mr.H’s errors are so egregious that even Answers in Genesis have found it necessary to chastise him. To not take advice from AiG is akin to him refusing to take advice on tax law from Glen Stoll for fear that Stoll was too supportive of the US government. Yup – that’s just about as loopy and as arrogantly stupid as you can get.

    It is regrettable that so many supporters of Mr H appear to have no grounding in science and therefore tend to believe everything he says.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

    P.S. Have you yet managed to work out why Mr & Mrs.H were not called upon to give evidence in their own defence?

74. 

    Millerfamily6

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 2:35pm:

    ---

    Greetings in Jesus’ Name,

    Still praying for you, Brother Hovind and family (including CSE staff). I remember your bonds daily; I just wish there were more we could do (If there is anything more we can do, please let us know through this blog). You don’t have to be a Bible “character” to go through tribulation in this world; the Lord said we would have it. The Lord Jesus is your source of strength, Hovind family, to go through the trials and tribulations of this world and we know that the world as well as professing Christians (those in Churchianity who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof), hates us, because they hate our Lord and His truth! May our Saviour enable all of us to endure the persecutions that come upon the true body of Christ and may He give us the ability to count it all joy for His sake.

    TO THE EVOLUTIONISTS, ATHEISTS POSTING HERE:
    It is apparent that you have not Christ in your heart and that perhaps you are envious and wish you had the love and devotion of unified believers in Christ (brothers and sisters) to love you and hold you up in high esteem and honour, which is the case with our brother who is in bonds for righteousness’ sake, and this is apparent to you. You can have that same family, too, if you would but repent of your vile sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom is the only means of salvation. Evolution is a lie from the pits of hell. Psalm 14:1-1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Romans 1:20-32 says, “20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    Whether you atheists/evolutionists want to believe it or not, the Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator of the uni (means one) verse (means spoken sentence). He spoke it into existence and holds it all together. Colossians 1:16-20 16 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
    17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
    18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
    19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
    20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”

    I hope & pray you’ll have ears to hear the word of truth: Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool,” through the blood of Christ’s cross.

    God our Father, please bless the Hovind family and CSE staff with all spiritual blessings!
    Michele Miller

75. 

    Roborat

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 3:05pm:

    ---

    You people are ignoring the fact that he deliberately ignored his obligations as an employer to pay his taxes, and demonstrated that he knew this fact by dealing only in cash and making withdraws at levels that would keep him just below the bank reporting levels. He was not ignorant of the tax laws, he knew them inside out and did everything he could to circumvent them. He got caught, and deserves the jail time and financial penalties he will get. This is not a religious persecution thing, it is a criminal act to willfully avoid your obligations to pay applicable taxes.

    And Mfox, you are either kidding or are completely ignorant of science. As for your posting, I will give you two points, lets see what you do with them. The earth is older than 6000 years, it is in the billions of years old, and dinosaurs did not co-exist with man, unless you count birds, which are the descendants of the dinosaurs.

76. 

    mfox

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 5:14pm:

    ---

    arensb,

    Thank you for the input. I am not a medical doctor and have no expertise in cancer treatments. My father died nine years ago of lung cancer and he was treated with some very nasty medicines. As explained to me, they were all very poisonous to the body but that is why they were useful in killing the cancer.

    Laetrile was not one of the poisons used to treat my father. Would he have been cured if he would have been treated by it? I don’t know and neither do you. Kent Hovind does not know either. The Hovind tapes I have are some 10 years old. He makes no claims about Laetrile on the tapes I have. So, I would ask you to be more specific about exactly what he claims. I do know that the scientific claims he makes on the tapes I have are always given under the umbrella of “Hovind Theory”. He explains that he can’t prove any of the things he is reporting; that is way he uses the term theory. It only seems fair that if the Theory of Evolution can be included in science curriculum, then other theories can be espoused without fear of condemnation.

    If Hovind were alone in the idea that Laetrile can cure cancer, I would agree with you that this would be “bad science”. However, a quick check at http://www.cancer.gov, which is the web site for the National Cancer Institute, will inform you that he is most certainly not alone in prescribing Laetrile treatment for cancer patients. Many medical doctors do it everyday and have for almost 200 years. Are they in violation of their profession in doing so? It seems you would claim that they are. Are you a medical doctor?

    I think that we would all agree, the FDA included, that more studies need to be performed before any scientific conclusions about the effectiveness of Laetrile against cancer can be made. Until then, it is all scientific theory.

    I like to take one thing at a time. I will address your concerns about momentum on an upcoming post.

    -Mel

77. 

    mfox

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 7:04pm:

    ---

    Samphire,

    I am all for keeping the discourse civilized. The e-mouth comment was only meant to engage not to insult.

    I will not address your personal assail of Dr. Hovind. Oh that’s right, you folks don’t like the “Dr.” Let’s just call him Kent, shall we? Kent is a big boy and can defend himself against personal attacks. You have chosen to paraphrase. I am not comfortable with this. One of us will have to look up Kent’s exact claim. What is true about Boyle’s Law, Charles’s Law, Gay-Lussac’s Law, and Avogadro’s Law is that they can tell us little about how stars were formed. This is so because they rule over a hypothetical gas. Real gases don’t follow these properties exactly. Under “normal” circumstances the properties of real gases are close enough to the hypothetical gas so that the ideal gas law can be used to model their behaviors. The circumstances surrounding the formation of a star are not normal. The high pressures associated with the dynamics of a star cause the real gases to behave in vastly different ways than would a hypothetical gas under those high pressures. Do we have any law’s to model this behavior?

    So, now we are back to what it is, exactly, Kent claimed. Are we interested and who should look it up?

    -Mel

78. 

    Samphire

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 7:11pm:

    ---

    Mel Fox wrote:

    “So, I would ask you to be more specific about exactly what he claims. I do know that the scientific claims he makes on the tapes I have are always given under the umbrella of “Hovind Theory”. He explains that he can’t prove any of the things he is reporting; that is way he uses the term theory. It only seems fair that if the Theory of Evolution can be included in science curriculum, then other theories can be espoused without fear of condemnation.”

    Another good example of Mr.H’s lack of understanding of science. “Hovind’s Theory” is neither a theory nor is it Hovind’s. It is a mishmash of a number of ridiculous hypotheses none of which are supported by evidence or experiment. Indeed, the individual elements making up the fantasy are anti-scientific in that they can be shown to be supported by no physical evidence whatsoever. In fact, the evidence is that the “theory” is balderdash from beginning to end. By your own admission, Mr.H cannot prove his “theory” so how can its claims be scientific if it cannot be tested?

    As for the ToE, there has been a vast amount of evidence garnered over the last 150 years supporting the theory and the pace is accelerating. As far as I am aware, there is not a single item of evidence in conflict with it. Can someone remind me of the name of a well-known creationist who stated in 1998 that genetics would within five years prove the ToE false. How embarrassingly wrong can one be?

    By the way, on another subject, I don’t wish to speak out of turn but given all these many messages of Christian support for Mr.H’s wilful criminal conduct. how come there have only been 4 responses under the heading of “Urgent help!” on CSEBlogs none of which mentioned the unfortunate Mr.Mooneyhan or the request for money for his medical treatment?

    Samphire

79. 

    M. Hopkins

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 8:39pm:

    ---

    Mfox wrote:

    “Please name one point of “bad science” which you believe Dr. Hovind espouses. I only ask this because I do not think you know what you are talking about. I would like the opportunity to clear things up for you.”

    This is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is hard to think of any person on any subject that has been as inaccurate as Kent Hovind. It is trivial to come up with hundreds, but here is a favorite example.

    From Kent Hovind’s seminar:

    “Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that’s supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrome c is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks. It depends what you want to compare. If you want to compare the eyes, we are closest to an octopus. Not a chimpanzee. Pick something. What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare. Pick something. If there were not some similarities between us and other animals we could only eat each other. So God designed all animals from the code so we could eat other plants and animals and digest them. Not proof for evolution. It’s proof of a common Designer!”

    Each of the comparisons Mr. Hovind listed above is wrong. The cytochrome c claim is inane. To my knowledge Mr. Hovind is the only creationist to claim it and I suspect that he simply made it up. There are many cytochrome c sequences that have been published in the journals and most of those are freely available online. The human and common chimpanzee sequence are identical while the sunflower cytochrome c is very much different. Indeed cytochrome c was one of the earliest molecules used in molecular phylogeny in the days before DNA sequencing was practical. It is mentioned in many books, articles, and web sites. I can’t imagine anyone with a long-time and serious interest in the subject of evolution not knowing this. A check of Google Scholar reveals thousands of scholarly articles via a search for both “cytochrome c” and phylogeny. In any event I am quite able to give many animal sequences closer to the human sequence than the sunflower sequence.

    Go to the web or go to the library. You will find that I say is true and what Mr. Hovind said is false.

    And this is just one example. Many more can be provided.

    [I will save a copy of this in case this is deleted or edited.]

80. 

    trust

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 8:44pm:

    ---

    I would like to make a comment on Laetril. I had a friend that had lung cancer and after surgery was given Laetril and lived for many year after.

    Ray

81. 

    trust

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 9:16pm:

    ---

    When you talk about Kent Hovind please remeber he alway said that this was his creation theory.
    Just as evolution is only a theory, and because of the way we have been lied to in the text book. The fraud that as taken place to try and support it, how can we believe anything about it.
    To Mr and Mrs Hovind, Im sorry for the position that you are in and my hope and prayer are that it will soon be over. Through the DVDs that I saw many years ago and now show to other’s, convinced me that the bible is true.
    Ray Gibbins Canada.

    Some school in England are looking at creation (ID) and using some of the material.

82. 

    Geocentric Bob

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 10:44pm:

    ---

    There is a pattern for obedience to authority that one can follow. Kent Hovind’s pattern may not agree with your obedience or the scriptural pattern and it obviously doesn’t agree with the authorities required obedience. What is clear in just a couple of verses of Daniel 12:2-3 is what Kent Hovind has done in obedience to the Lord. We know by Daniel’s word that “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” and what Kent Hovind has done and continues to do is “they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”

    When we arrive in heaven there will be some who shine. It says those who are wise will shine like the firmament does above us on a clear sunny day. There will also be those that shine bright like stars for turning many to righteousness. I think we can agree that a few have “turned” away from the insanity of evolution to see the wisdom of scripture and how the evidence shows that scripture is accurate because of what Kent Hovind has said. Kent Hovind will shine in his glorified body someday. Those who have heard Kent Hovind and choose not to turn will only have themselves to blame for the everlasting shame they will experience.

83. 

    Gordon_Comstock

    Said this on November 27th, 2006 at 11:40pm:

    ---

    To Everybody Who Thinks Dr. Hovind is Guilty of any Tax Crime, or any other banking anomaly:
    I hereby challenge you:
    Cite for us the U.S. law which requires Kent Hovind, or me, or you, to pay income tax.
    I’ll give you a hint.
    It doesn’t exist.
    Read Bill Benson’s “The Law that Never Was.”
    Watch the movie “America: From Freedom to Fascism.”
    That’s if you can take a break from bootlicking long-enough.
    And before you start to answer with anything other than what I have challenged you to respond with, any purely rhetorical wisecrack, I will repeat my challenge to your face:
    PLEASE CITE THE LAW WHICH REQUIRES WE THE PEOPLE TO PAY INCOME TAX.
    Now, before you go out and look for it, I must warn you, despite almost 100 years of the very same challenge, the unconstitutional and therefore unlawful IRS still refuses to answer this; it still fails to cite any law.
    Would you like to know why?
    Surprise!: It is because there is no such law.
    Now don’t you feel stupid?
    If you don’t, then at least we’ve solved the question of whether you are honest or not.
    God Bless you, Dr. Hovind. Samuel Adams and the Founding Fathers would be proud. Thank you for upholding Romans 13 in a lawful and entirely courageous way. The people persecuting you now are little different from the communist atheistic hatemongers who persecuted Alexander Solzhenitzen, another Godly man of recent history who stood up against the worldly herd mentality. Obsequiesness is easy; so’s ignorance. What a sad state this country has succumbed to. Stick a fork in the U.S. We’re done. Come Jesus come.

84. 

    authorized user

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 8:14am:

    ---

    “And Mfox, you are either kidding or are completely ignorant of science. As for your posting, I will give you two points, lets see what you do with them. The earth is older than 6000 years, it is in the billions of years old, and dinosaurs did not co-exist with man, unless you count birds, which are the descendants of the dinosaurs.”

    Where did you get your information!? There is no scientific evidence for any of your claims. About dinosaurs and man- there is ample proof that man did indeed co-exist with dinosaurs. How do you explain Ica Stones? What is your proof that dinosaurs didn’t co-exist with man? What is your proof that the earth is billions of years old!? If you have ever listened to one of Dr. Hovind’s debates you will know that when an evolutionist tries to prove evolution, he uses phrases like “we believe”, “we think it might have” and “it probably”. Evolution has no place is science. It has been dis proven, so please, throw out your faulty theory and get another one.

    Authorized

85. 

    fzindler

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 9:27am:

    ---

    A friend has kindly informed me that Keith Sparks has said some unkind things about me and has posted on this blog an e-mail that I had sent him privately. I am, of course, shocked that Keith publicly would call me an “evil man,” even though he knows absolutely nothing of my personal life. (Our only personal contact, as far as I am aware, has been discussions about my debating Hovind on the subject of Noah’s Flood and my periodic up-dates concerning Hovind’s legal problems.)

    I have sent Keith several e-mails pertaining to exciting developments in the field of evolutionary studies, but to my dismay he has interpreted this has harrassment. Moreover, he now insults me privately the same way he libeled me publicly. As you all can see from the exchange below, he charges me with being “an evil man.” There is no way I can refute so unspecific a claim, and I can only say that there are many people all over the world who would disagree. Even so, whether I am “evil” or not has no bearing upon the truth of evolution or the human origins of all bibles.

    I include below a recent e-mail from Keith for readers of this blog to consider.

    Frank,
    The more I consider this, the more I come to the conclusion that you’re harassing me. Secondly, I’m convinced that that you’re an evil man. I’m a christian with an absolute certainty of mr origins. You’re never going to convince me otherwise. Please, leave me alone. Keith

    From: Frank Zindler
    Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 12:22 AM
    Cc: Sparks, R. Keith
    Subject: More evidence

    Keith,

    What a marvelous two weeks this has been for evolutionary studies! The November 10, 2006, issue of SCIENCE published the genome of the sea urchen, yielding deep insights into macroevolution at its most extreme level. Then the November 16 issue of NATURE published a preliminary report on the Neanderthal genome, of which I have already written. A day later, on November 17, SCIENCE published a second preliminary report on the Neanderthal genome done by an independent team, confirming the 99.5% similarity with the human genome and allowing further explanation of the later stages of human evolution.

    The same issue published a brief notice of the capture of a dolphin with the remnants of hind legs — showing simultaneously that whales have descended from land mammals, still have the genes once useful when their ancestors lived on land, and quite certainly are not the products of “intelligent design.” (Why would an intelligent designer give them a whole package of normally useless genes, genes that code for organs that they normally do just fine without?)

    I have been thinking a lot about Kent recently, wondering what he would make of these reports. My guess is that he wouldn’t be able to understand them, because his science education was so poor, ending at a level much too elementary to comprehend these molecular genetics studies. (Remember, even his mail-order “doctorate” was in education, not science.)

    Today is “Thanksgiving,” and even though I disapprove of such a holiday being promoted by our government, it has made me reflect on how lucky I am compared to Kent. I don’t mean simply the difference between being free and being in prison — although that is significant enough. Rather, I realize how lucky I am to have had the academic carreer I pursued and to have the job I now have. My degree in geology allows me to expose easily the misrepresentations of creationists concerning deep time and the fossil record. My advanced studies in brain physiology allow me to understand at least somewhat the workings of the religious mind and how “religious experiences” are generated. My degree in evolutionary biology and many years of teaching evolutionary biology have caused me to read tons of creationist literature, some of which I even used in my SUNY classes to help my students understand the tricks and deceptions used by “professional” creationists — creationists who make a living by attacking science. If Kent had been publishing his nonsense 30 years ago, I would have found it perfect material for my elementary courses.

    At the moment, however, I am luckiest because my job frequently involves analyzing documents in the field of molecular genetics. That means that I can have the latest, most up-to-the-minute information on such things as the similarities between gorillas, chimps, humans, and whatever. I get to go to scientific meetings where I can meet and talk with the researchers publishing research such as the human genome. Kent, however, for many years has been cut off from all this information. To be sure, that has been mainly due to his own decision to attack science rather than to try to understand it, but it is also in large part due to the fact that he simply wouldn’t be able understand it, lacking the education to do so.

    I have already commented on the importance of the Neanderthal genome studies. But of even greater importance, probably, is the publication of the sea urchin genome. This is important for at least two reasons:

    (1) Since the echinoderms (sea urchins, star fish, sea lillies, sea cucumbers, etc.) have long been known from classical evolutionary studies to be the phylum clossest to the chordates (the phylum containing us vertebrates), comparison of their genomes with those of other invertebrates and with vertebrates allows us to reconstruct macroevolutionary events occurring extremely far back in time, even before the Cambrian period when the development of hard body parts first made fossilization of animals common. The more genome sequences we have, the more reliable and detailed reconstructions we can make. Comparing the genetic “texts” of the various animals allows us to reconstruct ancestral genetic texts, in much the same way that comparing, say, the various manuscripts of the gospels allow us to reconstruct the various stages in the evolution of the text of “Matthew” or “Luke.” (Incidentally, I doubt that Kent knows anything at all about the evolution of the gospels; he almost certainly does not know that the last 12 verses of “Mark” are forgeries added some time after the 4th century.) Once again, how lucky I have been to have had the opportunity to learn Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc., so I could study first-hand the evolution of biblical texts, without having to take anybody else’s word for any claim.

    (2) The sea urchin genome gives us a fantastic picture of the evolution of immune systems, including our own. You probably have heard “Intelligent Design” advocates claim that the human immune system is “irreducibly complex” and could not therefore have evolved step-by-step from simpler ancestral systems. Articles in SCIENCE about sea urchin immunity genes shoots this all to pieces, revealing that both our innate immunity (immunity we are born with) and our acquired (adaptive) immunity (immunity we acquire, say, after getting a flu shot) have their simpler equivalents in the humble sea urchin. The actual studies reported are extremely technical, however, and once again, if even a biochemist has to work hard to understand it all, Kent certainly would be able to do nothing but ridicule the work.

    I started by mentioning what a great two weeks this has been for evolutionary studies. But as I glance through a big pile of NATUREs and SCIENCEs in my library, I see that EVERY issue has contained reports of major advances in understanding of evolution and supporting the commonplace scientific conclusion that all living things from bacteria to humans are systems of matter and energy — period. There is no “vital force,” and there is nothing anywhere that points to supernatural agency. Life is chemistry. Life can be understood completely in natural terms. We are living in a Golden Age of evolutionary studies. We have no need of any gods, goddesses, or heavenly heifers.

    While all these journals present evidence supporting the fact of evolution, absolutely none of them reveals any evidence to support the notion that the world is only 6000 years old, that the world was destroyed by a world-encompassing flood in the year 2,348 BCE, that humans are unrelated to apes or monkeys, that geese are unrelated to swans, that all the marsupials got to Australia from a mountain in Turkey (ditto for the flightless kiwi of New Zealand), or that there is any biological structure or process whatsoever that is “irreducibly complex.”

    It occurs to me that Kent probably could get some good modern college textbooks in biology, biochemistry, anthropology, etc., and could use his time in captivity to begin to learn something about the real world instead of the fantastic, crazy world of which he has preached. While it would be hard work, in the end I think he would find it much more satisfying than the make-believe world of creationism.

    I hope you and your family have had a good holiday today. I know you are a good man who thinks he is doing the right thing in supporting Kent Hovind. I hope, however, you will look beyond this episode and consider the possibility that you have been misled. How can hundreds of thousands of scientists be wrong about literally billions of facts, while a man who has never done any scientific research himself has ALL these things right?

    For reason,

    Frank

86. 

    b_sharp

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 9:44am:

    ---

    Trust said:

    When you talk about Kent Hovind please remeber he alway said that this was his creation theory.
    Just as evolution is only a theory, and because of the way we have been lied to in the text book. The fraud that as taken place to try and support it, how can we believe anything about it.

    _________________________

    I take it you find it acceptable for Hovind to spread inaccuracies as long as he prefaces his comments with ‘it’s just a theory’?

    Do you accept his stories as being correct despite their being easily shown to be false?

    You might want to look up the definition of ‘theory’ as used by science. If you do you will see that, in excusing himself and his errors, he is using the common usage definition of ‘theory’ to mean ’supposition’ and then linking his use of the word to the use in science for the sole purpose of reducing the image of a scientific theory to nothing more than supposition in the minds of his audience.

    In science the closest thing to a ’supposition’ is an hypothesis, not a theory. An hypothesis is conjecture based on preliminary information and observations. The initial conjecture suggests methods to test and disprove the hypothesis. Only after the hypothesis has been subjected to tests that can potentially disprove it without failing and predictions made based on the hypothesis have been shown accurate can a theory be formed from the accumulated evidence and the results of the tests. In science, a theory is an explanation and does not and can not ‘graduate’ to a law, which is a description. A theory is a high as it gets.

    The SToE (Synthetic Theory of Evolution), which covers biological evolution only, is backed by more than 150 years of data and has survived 10s of 1000s of tests attempting to falsify some portion of it.

    Hovind’s ‘theory’ is nothing of the sort. He forms conjectures with a specific conclusion in mind, which is the exact opposite to science. None of his work is backed up by research, statistical analysis, or by any comparisons of current research findings. Everything Hovind puts together is based on his musings of what could explain what he wants to be true, despite much of his conjecture involving processes that defy physical laws.

    An example of this is his conjecture that a large comet hit the Earth near the pole, tilting its axis and flash freezing a number of mammoths which putatively have been found with undigested and undecayed food in their stomachs.

    Aside from the fact that there were no mammoths found flash frozen, nor with undecayed food in their stomachs, a comet large enough to tilt the Earth’s axis ~22 degrees would not have flash frozen anything. The kinetic energy released from the impact would have vapourised everything for 100s of miles, created earthquakes and triggered volcanoes around the world, melted all of the ice and snow on the comet, and increased the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. It would cook the mammoths. It wouldn’t flash freeze them.

    This is typical of Hovind’s anti-science arguments. He never bothers to consider the physical consequences of his ideas, if they sound good he just repeats them.

87. 

    b_sharp

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 10:17am:

    ---

    authorized user said:

    Where did you get your information!? There is no scientific evidence for any of your claims. About dinosaurs and man- there is ample proof that man did indeed co-exist with dinosaurs. How do you explain Ica Stones?
    _____________________________

    The Ica stones were an admitted fraud.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones:
    [quote]
    Spanish investigator Vicente Paris, after 4 years of investigation, offered in 1998 new evidence that supports that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and sandpaper.
    [/quote]
    *****************************

    What is your proof that dinosaurs didn’t co-exist with man?
    _____________________________

    All dinosaur fossils have been found on strata much older than fossils of humans. No fossils of dinosaurs have been found on the same stratum as human fossils.

    However, this is irrelevant to evolution. What is important is that the earliest fossils of dinosaurs have been found in much earlier strata than the earliest human fossils. This chronological sequence supports the idea of descent. There is no set time for a species to survive, no law that demands a species become extinct. This means that dinosaurs could still exist today, meaning of course that humans could co-exist with dinosaurs, but this is a much different scenario than proposing that humans and dinosaurs started out at the same time.

    *****************************
    What is your proof that the earth is billions of years old!?
    _____________________________

    Various dating methods have been used, including radiometrics, but not including carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating is used to measure organic material and is good to only 50,000. However there are quite a few other dating methods which can be used to give dates beyond that 50,000.

    *****************************

    If you have ever listened to one of Dr. Hovind’s debates you will know that when an evolutionist tries to prove evolution, he uses phrases like “we believe”, “we think it might have” and “it probably”. Evolution has no place is science. It has been dis proven, so please, throw out your faulty theory and get another one.
    ________________________

    I have listened to Hovind’s tapes and found them to be full of errors, misrepresentations and an extremely poor understanding of science.

    All science uses tentative language, not just ‘evolution’. Scientists are well aware that new information, from new technology or new techniques can modify a theory. The only place you will find belief of 100% certainty is in religion and politics.

    BTW, you are aware of the large number of scientific disciplines which contribute to the SToE? Are they all non-scientific?

88. 

    darling

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 10:37am:

    ---

    Gordon_Comstock, obviously you have not been reading these comments, because your questions have been asked and answered.

    Not only that, but your question is irrelevant, because Mr. Hovind was not charged with failing to pay income tax.

    But, if you really want to know, the answer is here:
    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

    More importantly – despite all the crazy tax protester theories and rhetoric, no court has held or will hold that the Internal Revenue Code is invalid or that the Internal Revenue Service lacks power to levy or collect income taxes:
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

    I am truly sorry he’s in jail – nobody more than me wishes he had not cheated the IRS and the American public out of his obligations. But Mr. Hovind once said, “Call the IRS and tell them to arrest me if I am breaking a law!” Be careful what you wish for.

89. 

    authorized user

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 12:18pm:

    ---

    That link about the Ica Stones says “The neutrality of this article is disputed.” Wikipedia is edited readers! I don’t consider an article that is edited anyone valid.
    “The Ica stones were an admitted fraud.” Just because someone wanted to take the credit for them doesn’t mean he was telling the truth.

    Evolution isn’t the issue. Sin is. God wrote his law on your heart. It’s called your conscience. The more times you do something against your conscience, the less it speaks to you. The first time you lied, your conscience told you it was wrong. Them the next time you lied it wasn’t as strong and so forth. Let’s revive your conscience:
    Have you ever told a lie? If you have, that makes you a liar.
    Have you ever stolen anything? If you have, that makes you a thief.
    Have you ever looked with lust? God sees lust as adultery. If you have looked at another person with lust, that makes you an adulterer.
    Have you ever hated someone? God sees hatred as murder; if you have hated anyone God sees you as a murder.
    If you have said “yes” to these four questions, God sees you as a lying, thieving, adulterous, murderer at heart. Your conscience accuses you.
    The Bible says all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
    You have offended God by breaking His Law. The Bible says His wrath abides on you.
    But that’s not all!! God sent His son to the earth to pay the penalty for your sin! He loves you so much Jesus forsake His glory and became a man to make the only way to be forgiven! Man, you can be forgiven! He died on the cross and on the third day rose from the dead and defeated death!! He doesn’t want you to go to Hell. If you will believe in Jesus and repent(turn) from your sins, your name will be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. Please think about this before just throwing it out of your mind! JUDGMENT DAY IS COMING! BE READY!

90. 

    chaplaindoug

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 12:34pm:

    ---

    To Samphire:

    You claim, “It is regrettable that so many supporters of Mr H appear to have no grounding in science and therefore tend to believe everything he says.”

    I am a supporter of Dr. Hovind, and while I may not be able to say I believe everthing he says (since I have not heard everything he has said) I do agree with him in the main. Moreover, in my observation Dr. Hovind’s beliefs and statements are in the main compatible with what the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis believe and teach.

    With regard to supporters having no grounding in science, I am a scientist who holds earned bachelor, masters, and doctoral degrees. I hold degrees in pure and applied mathematics, education, and Christian ministry. I graduated summa cum laude in two of my four degrees and cum laude in the other two. I served seventeen years as an aerospace engineer, specializing in the design, launch, and flight analysis of intermediate and long-range ballistic missile systems. I was formerly a scientific programming specialist in this field and now serve as an information technology executive.

    I would not have otherwise mentioned any of the above credentials in this blog. But since it seems to be important to you, there you have it. But I might also add that the faculty at the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) hold earned masters and doctoral degrees in variety of scientific disciplines.

    Even before I became a Christian the theory of evolution appeared to me to be a futile and preposterous way of explaining origins or anything else. My physics professor (in a secular school) debunked the “theory of evolution.” Moreover, our own secular advanced physics textbook put the theory as an optional addendum. It was clear that they had little regard for it as well, and were embarassed to even put it in the book. They gave it one page.

    I am not a chemist, but I can still count. Probability alone leads one to quickly dismiss the story of evolution at its supposed beginning in the bubbling soup of antiquity. The probability of even a single protein molecule arising as a result of 20 of myriad amino acids bubbling around along with myriad other chemicals and randomly combining into a strictly-ordered polypeptide chain of 50 to several hundred amino-acid subunits is so low as to deem it statisticly impossible. And one protein molecule is NOT life. Randomly getting from one protein molecule to billions of protein molecules being created, bonding together, forming cells, getting a brain, swinging on a tree, and finally typing a letter in a blog is a laughable myth at best.

    Sadly for those who reject the God of Creation in favor of evolution and the big bang, evolution will never be able to overcome the fact that logic and probability refute it at every turn. Sorry.

    Well it was once said by a professor of physics and chemistry:

    If you think that you can toss a batch hundreds of multicolored “pick-up-sticks” into the air and have them land in neat rows, separated by color, then go ahead and try it. Try it as many times as you like. The amount of time it takes you to come to the conclusion that it ain’t going to happen is a measure of your intelligence.

    ChaplainDoug

91. 

    chaplaindoug

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 12:58pm:

    ---

    Also, it seems quite convenient to debate a man when he cannot respond. Why do not all those who are stepping up here to refute Dr. Hovind wait until he is exonerated and/or released and then invite him to a debate. I believe that Dr. Hovind had a long-standing $250K challenge for anyone who could present irrefutable proof for macro-evolution. Since some in this blog claim to have such proof, and oodles thereof, again wait until he is released and present it to him or even to ICR or Answers in Genesis.

92. 

    mfox

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 1:32pm:

    ---

    Samphire, MHopkins, bsharp,

    While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I can’t run off in nine different directions at one time. Therefore, I will try to focus on one point per post. I believe it to be a good time to address your exceptions to “Hovind theory”.

    From Wikipedia;

    “In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.”

    If a theory must by definition deal exclusivly with natural (material) phenomena then any creationist explanations are out the window from the start for they require the supernatural miricle. This would be a trivial exclusion hardly becoming honest seekers of the Truth.

    Special creation, as I see it, predicts species, the Biblical kinds, will stay pretty much as they are, save variations. This is what we observe. I agree testing and therefore falsifying special creation in its entirety is difficult or impossible. I would further state that falsifying the theory of evolution is equally impossible.

    This brings us back to Hovind. He knows and admits that his suppositions do not hold up to the rigorous scientific definition of theory. He claims and I agree that neither does the theory of evolution. Hovind theory and the theory of evolution belong in the relm of metaphysics. As for Hovind theory not being his, he also freely admits to that.

    The rules of the science game are set by those who play it. The presidence of supposition was set by proponents of cosmic evolution. They have two basic premises: 1) everything can be explained by natural processes and 2) all physical laws have been in effect just as they are for all time and they have NEVER CHANGED. All knowledge of evolution is based on these two premises and is therefore scientifically unfalsifiable.

    Hovind is simply playing the game of science by these same rules. His two basic premises: 1) the Bible gives a True and real account of creation and 2) the physical laws in effect today have not always been in effect (LAWS HAVE CHANGED). All knowledge of creation is based on these two premises and is therefore scientifically unfalsifiable.

    Does this allow Hovind, you, or me to spread lies in the name of knowledge? NO! That is what our investigation here should be about. Are Hovind’s claims false? I will address them one by one as long as interest persists. You have given me many to choose from. Where to start?

    -Mel

93. 

    trust

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 1:35pm:

    ---

    I take it you find it acceptable for Hovind to spread inaccuracies as long as he prefaces his comments with ‘it’s just a theory’?

    I do not intend to get into a long debate that can not have an answer. But I will take Dr Kent Hovinds Theory over the lies printed in the textbooks which are being given as facts to our children.

    Theory:
    Scheme or system of ideas etc, held to explain observed facts etc.
    (formulation of) abstract knowledge;systematic statement of general principles;
    (knowledge of)principles or method of art, technical subject, etc,.
    opp practice: mere hypothesis, conjecture, Individual view or notion.
    This is from the Oxford Dictionary.
    Can’t find where it say’s theory is a fact. Yet this is what they tell our children.
    Ray

94. 

    bioteacher

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 2:51pm:

    ---

    This is my first post on this board. And as I look over the previous posts I am struck by the number of people that are speaking from critically biased perspectives. I understand evolution in it’s entirety and I also understand creation. As for my credentials (which apparently carries a lot of weight to some people), I have a BS Science Biology with a focus on ecology, BS Science Chemistry with a focus on General Chemistry, a minor in Phsyics, I have published in several scientific journals, and am pursuing my post-graduate program at an accredited university. Enough of that, let’s move on.

    b_sharp –
    In response to the query regarding human and dinosaur co-existance, you have sited the ica stones as being fraudulant. This may indeed be the case, I don’t know. However I believe that you are missing and misleading away from many sources of data that support the possible coexistance of man and dinosaur. Now I’m not going to say this is fact, but there are several bodies of evidence suggesting this possiblity. I understand that as a scientist we are highly pressured to support the evolutionary theory, however, a true scientist will have an open mind about alternate possibilities and new and developing evidence. I know that there is much controversy over the Paloxy River tracks, and as neither you nor I have seen them in person, we will forgoe discussing those in depth. But I believe that the information regarding those tracks have been tampered with in the years since their discovery. I would refer to the details of the first discovery which reported that the tracks were “distinctly human” next to very clear dinosaur tracks.

    I would also caution you on using terms such as “earlier strata”. There are also many things that evidence that our currently held belief about the rate of sedimentary depostion is questionable. Most notably to me is the evidence of vast numbers of polystrata fossils. For those that don’t know what that means, polystrata fossils are those found vertical or near-vertical across several sedimentary layers. This then should make us question how these remains fossilized and remained intact while the sediment around it took “millions of years” to accumulate. A true scientist will evalutate this evidence against their current thought processes. There is controversy (of course) surrounding the fossilized whale, but the clear evidence of thousands of polystrata tree trunks is enough to make me question. The majority of these tree fossils, it is now clear, were not in situ when buried. This means that the trees were not buried in the same place that they were growing. This is shown by the fragmentation of stigmaria roots.

    The radiometric dating systems have been shown to be highly inaccurate. Even within our scientific community, we see these dating methods yielding such varied results that we must discard those that we deem are highly inaccurate. This means that we are, in a sense, only keeping the dates that correspond with what we want. If a dating method does not yield reliable dates, it should not be used. (By the way Carbon-14 dating is only accurate for about 1500 years not 50,000 years, sorry)

    Also, the “Hovind Theory” does not state that a comet/meteor hit the earth. It suggests that Earth passed through the tail of a comet, and that the gravitational pull of the comet combined with the debris altered the angle of the earths rotation. If you want to attack Hovind’s argument watch the video he put out on his theory and then come back with ammunition. It is multi-faceted. And you are correct in saying it is not a Theory. It cannot be supported through repeatable laboratory tests. It is an hypothesis, I believe the Theory part of the title is innaccurate.

    Someone earlier-
    Made a comment about the Conservation of Angular Momentum and how it relates to stellar and cosmic evolution. Unfortunately this IS a point that is difficult to overcome with the current Big Bang Theory. Most scientist have forsaken the Big Bang and have rather said that we don’t know. This is a much more accurate statement. No one knows for certain how things came into existance in the universe.

    Frank Zindler -
    You said in your response, “While all these journals present evidence supporting the fact of evolution, absolutely none of them reveals any evidence to support the notion that the world is only 6000 years old, that the world was destroyed by a world-encompassing flood in the year 2,348 BCE…” This is an absolutely true statement, however even if there were evidence suggesting any of that would you seriously expect to find it in a journal like that?

    Hovind makes a valid point that evolution is protected with a religious fervor and zeal. This is an accurate assessment. Just look at all the prior discussions. Both sides hold to their own view without giving any ground. (There are some who chose to support both views, but even I can tell you that is foolish. The Bible and Evolution DO NOT MIX! This is very clear by the most rudimentary comparisons. Those that hold to both views are compromising both views to satisfy their indescisiveness.) In truth, both evolutionists and creationists look at the evidence that they see around them and they interpret it. Both sides can be accused of interpreting things with the foreknowledge of their worldview and thus skewing things in their favor. We can only look at the FACTS of the world around us. These need to be acknowledged without prior theories contaminating the thought processes. This is ideal. Won’t happen though, but it is idea. Even the greatest scientists have difficulty distancing themselves from their opinions. It is human nature.

    This is an area of great controversy, and I would invite both sides to present evidence supporting their theory so we can have open discussion. After all, isn’t that how science should work? Let us peer review, let us discuss, and please, let us cease degrading eachothers character as an attempt to deface them. Some of you consider the other party crazy, cultish, pig-headed, or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Talk science.

    Sorry so long, and thanks,
    JN

95. 

    Maturekid

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 5:11pm:

    ---

    bioteacher,

    I applaud your comments and wish to add two additional details. It is totally true that Creationism, Evolution, Horvind’s “Theory”, and all other life origin concepts are strictly in the realm of a scientific hypothesis. It would be my understanding of Science that in debates on this matter, any hypothesis submitted for scrutiny should comply with the known laws of science. Be that all as it may, this brings us to my additional details.

    In all of Hovind’s seminar DVDs, he has a very valid point. Evolution does not warrant being taught in the Public Education schools paid by the tax dollars of the majority that does not agree with it. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml. If 51% totally disagree with evolution and an additional 30% on the fence, then why should our tax dollars be spent supporting a questionable hypothesis? It should remain a topic of scientific debate without the children being in the middle. There is plenty of good science to be taught without including Evolution, Creationism, or any origin concept in the curriculum.

    Regarding the tax issues and other legal charges pending against Horvind, he had another point held strongly by many with many links already shared. Most of our country’s current social problems would be solved if we bothered to actually follow the US Constitution. It is a great masterpiece to run a country by, if we would use it.

96. 

    Gressil

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 5:26pm:

    ---

    To Chaplaindoug, you said:

    “Even before I became a Christian the theory of evolution appeared to me to be a futile and preposterous way of explaining origins or anything else. My physics professor (in a secular school) debunked the “theory of evolution.” Moreover, our own secular advanced physics textbook put the theory as an optional addendum. It was clear that they had little regard for it as well, and were embarassed to even put it in the book. They gave it one page.”

    Not that I think you are a liar (well, in fact I do) but perhaps you could give us the name of this “secular advanced physics textbook”, an ISBN number will be fine. Why on earth would a physics textbook deal with evolution?

    To mfox:
    I notice that you asked for some instances of where Hovind used poor science, you have received multiple answers to this (including a very good reply from M Hopkins) yet you have simply ignored these (ran away is probably a better analogy) and focused on the meaning of the word “theory”. You certainly seemed to have changed your tune since you said:

    “So, please select, in your view, the most outrageous scientific claim of Dr.[sic] Hovind and we will investigate. Are you game or do you just like to shoot off your e-mouth.”

    What I don’t understand is why you lot just don’t accept what you believe on faith? I mean is your faith so weak that you have to pervert science and try and make it fit your world view? No matter what you or Hovind want the Earth really is 4.5 billion years old and humans and the rest of the great apes share a common defect in the gene that should produce vitamin C, explain that without common descent.

97. 

    Gressil

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 5:33pm:

    ---

    Bioteacher, you said:
    “…I have published in several scientific journals,”

    Any chance of a cite or will we just have to take your word for it? Otherwise I’ll just have to assume you are just trying to argue from authority.

98. 

    WU

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 5:54pm:

    ---

    EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO GET A COPY OF THIS DVD AT: http://WWW.FREEDOMTOFASCISM.COM

    IT WILL ANSWER ALL, AND I MEAN ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT INCOME TAX AND KENT HOVINDS SITUATION. VIEW THE DVD THEN POST BACK!

99. 

    trust

    Said this on November 28th, 2006 at 6:28pm:

    ---

    To JN I would say thank, What you had to say is more intresting than who’s right and who’s wrong (but Im always right). So can we get down to what we think is right on both sides, and use our grey matter to see what fits the evidence. JN I would like to hear more from you.

    Ray

100. 

     turtlejs

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 2:16am:

     ---

     This is in response to the Laetrile (Vitamin B-17) claims.

     Here are some good websites and books that will help educate you on this subject:

     http://www.worldwithoutcancer.com, http://www.cancercurefoundation.org, , also good http://www.hallalujahacres.com

     World Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin, Alive and Well by Philip E. Benzel, Jr., M.D.

     I became interested in this subject after several family members and friends died not long after receiving traditional medical treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) for their cancers. Not long after seeing the CSE Seminar part 2, when Dr. Hovind talked about this issue, I started doing some research on this and other alternative medical treatments. What I found out made me sad that my loved ones had died unnecessarily, and upset that this life-saving information has been intentionally withheld from the American public.

     Cancer is preventable! Cancer, if it has not progressed too far or if the patient has not been too badly damaged by harsh medical treatments, can be healed. (Unless, of course, it’s the Lord’s will that they die.) The diet of most Americans is horrendous, it’s no wonder we have all these diseases. Not to mention all the poisons our bodies take in through prescription drugs and environmental factors. Our bodies were designed to be vegetarian (Gen. 1:29), and when we take in animal products, our bodies cannot assimilate them properly. We can get everything our body needs from fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and seeds.

     It’s sad to say Americans, but we’ve been lied to by our own government (food pyramid). The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. How true that is! If you can’t patent natural occuring things, such as the vitamins found in fruits and veges, then how will the big pharmaceutical companies made their billions of dollars selling you their drugs? How will the meat, egg, and dairy industries make their billions if they can’t convince you that you need milk for strong bones (the opposite is true) and that your protein must come from eggs and meat?!

     I could go on and on, but I won’t.

     Please educate yourself on these matters!! Search for the truth with an open mind and be willing to except it whether it pleases your taste buds or not!

     J.S.

101. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 2:54am:

     ---

     chaplaindoug
     Said this at 12:58pm:
     “Also, it seems quite convenient to debate a man when he cannot respond. Why do not all those who are stepping up here to refute Dr. Hovind wait until he is exonerated and/or released and then invite him to a debate. I believe that Dr. Hovind had a long-standing $250K challenge for anyone who could present irrefutable proof for macro-evolution. Since some in this blog claim to have such proof, and oodles thereof, again wait until he is released and present it to him or even to ICR or Answers in Genesis.”

     You may be unaware, Chaplaindoug, that Mr.H. refuses to debate in writing. As a trained engineer you should be able to derive for yourself why Mr.H’s challenge is thorougly bogus. He also refuses to disclose the names of his referees or the supposed source of his funds – scarcely the constituents of a reputable challenge.

102. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 3:11am:

     ---

     I know Dr. Hovind is not a Bible Characture, but I’m so glad that I don’t have to be a Bible Characture to be able to partake of the promises of the Bible. Bible Charactures are still supposed to be examples for us and the promises, blessings, and warnings are real for us.

     Dr. Hovind’s seminars have been a special blessing to me and my family. We passed out 180 of them in front of a local high school this morning.

     Take heart as some spew out hatred for Dr. Hovind saying that they are glad he is in prison, God may remember their hatred and let him go.

     Proverbs 24: 17 – 18 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him.

     I know Dr. Hovind has stood his ground because he believes what he is doing is what God would have him do. I know he loves the Lord and His word. Regardless whether you think he is right or wrong in this matter take heed.

     Matthew 25: 34 – 46 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
     For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
     Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
     Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
     When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
     Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
     And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
     Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
     For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
     I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
     Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
     Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
     And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

103. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 3:15am:

     ---

     Chaplaindoug
     Said this at 12:34pm:
     To Samphire:

     “You claim, “It is regrettable that so many supporters of Mr H appear to have no grounding in science and therefore tend to believe everything he says.”

     I am a supporter of Dr. Hovind, and while I may not be able to say I believe everthing he says (since I have not heard everything he has said) I do agree with him in the main.”

     But do you agree with everthing that you have heard him say? If not, please give us an example of what you disagree with.

     “Moreover, in my observation Dr. Hovind’s beliefs and statements are in the main compatible with what the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis believe and teach.”

     They remain embarrassed at much of what he preaches.

     “With regard to supporters having no grounding in science, I am a scientist who holds earned bachelor, masters, and doctoral degrees. I hold degrees in pure and applied mathematics, education, and Christian ministry. I graduated summa cum laude in two of my four degrees and cum laude in the other two. I served seventeen years as an aerospace engineer, specializing in the design, launch, and flight analysis of intermediate and long-range ballistic missile systems. I was formerly a scientific programming specialist in this field and now serve as an information technology executive.”

     And your background in biology, geology, genetics…..? Degrees in education and christian minstry are irrelevant to this issue nor do I see how degrees in mathematics would assist you. Superstring theory is pure mathematics but I doubt you would subscribe to the idea that it represents the fabric of matter, time and space

     “I would not have otherwise mentioned any of the above credentials in this blog. But since it seems to be important to you, there you have it. But I might also add that the faculty at the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) hold earned masters and doctoral degrees in variety of scientific disciplines.”

     What research do any of them actually carry out and what results have any of them discovered which falsify the ToE?

     “Even before I became a Christian the theory of evolution appeared to me to be a futile and preposterous way of explaining origins or anything else. My physics professor (in a secular school) debunked the “theory of evolution.” ”

     What a clever fellow. Did he publish? Was he a Christian? Had he, like Mr H, already made up his mind at the age of 16?

     “Moreover, our own secular advanced physics textbook put the theory as an optional addendum. It was clear that they had little regard for it as well, and were embarassed to even put it in the book. They gave it one page.”

     I am surprised that a physics book included it at all. A biology book yes,

     “I am not a chemist, but I can still count. Probability alone leads one to quickly dismiss the story of evolution at its supposed beginning in the bubbling soup of antiquity. The probability of even a single protein molecule arising as a result of 20 of myriad amino acids bubbling around along with myriad other chemicals and randomly combining into a strictly-ordered polypeptide chain of 50 to several hundred amino-acid subunits is so low as to deem it statisticly impossible.”

     The probability of you having got a particular hand of cards at Bridge is also so low as to deem it statisticly improbable – but you still got it.

     “And one protein molecule is NOT life. Randomly getting from one protein molecule to billions of protein molecules being created, bonding together, forming cells, getting a brain, swinging on a tree, and finally typing a letter in a blog is a laughable myth at best.

     Sadly for those who reject the God of Creation in favor of evolution and the big bang, evolution will never be able to overcome the fact that logic and probability refute it at every turn. Sorry.”

     And logic and probability lead you drectly to an unbreakable belief in the God of the Old Testament? I’m sorry too.

     “Well it was once said by a professor of physics and chemistry: If you think that you can toss a batch hundreds of multicolored “pick-up-sticks” into the air and have them land in neat rows, separated by color, then go ahead and try it. Try it as many times as you like. The amount of time it takes you to come to the conclusion that it ain’t going to happen is a measure of your intelligence.”

     And what does that have to do with the price of fish as my Christian mother used to say?

104. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 3:46am:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 1:32pm:
     “Samphire, MHopkins, bsharp,

     While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I can’t run off in nine different directions at one time. Therefore, I will try to focus on one point per post. I believe it to be a good time to address your exceptions to Hovind theory.

     From Wikipedia;

     In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

     If a theory must by definition deal exclusivly with natural (material) phenomena then any creationist explanations are out the window from the start for they require the supernatural miricle. This would be a trivial exclusion hardly becoming honest seekers of the Truth.”

     Samphire: Hardly trivial. If the supernatural explanation is allowable then any individual’s belief system is equally valid. This, of course, allows for people such as scam artist Sylvia Brown to flourish.

     “Special creation, as I see it, predicts species, the Biblical kinds, will stay pretty much as they are, save variations. This is what we observe.”

     Samphire: Do we? It depends on how you define species. To ignore the observations of paleontology would not be intellectually honest.

     “I agree testing and therefore falsifying special creation in its entirety is difficult or impossible. I would further state that falsifying the theory of evolution is equally impossible.”

     Samphire: Why? If the theory is false surely one day it should become capable of falsification. Science has tried to falsify it but wthout success to date.

     “This brings us back to Hovind. He knows and admits that his suppositions do not hold up to the rigorous scientific definition of theory. He claims and I agree that neither does the theory of evolution. Hovind theory and the theory of evolution belong in the relm of metaphysics. As for Hovind theory not being his, he also freely admits to that.”

     Samphire: So why does he maintain that it is the Hovind Theory? Have you read Samphire’s Three Laws of Motion; admittedly Newton had very simiar ideas a few hundred years ago.

     “The rules of the science game are set by those who play it. The presidence of supposition was set by proponents of cosmic evolution. They have two basic premises: 1) everything can be explained by natural processes and 2) all physical laws have been in effect just as they are for all time and they have NEVER CHANGED. All knowledge of evolution is based on these two premises and is therefore scientifically unfalsifiable.”

     Samphire: With respect, that is utter nonsense. Mr.H has been busy trying to falsify it for years by financing expeditions to Africa to discover living dinasaurs. If they were to be found then the ToE would need rapid and radical amendment. I am not holding my breath.

     “Hovind is simply playing the game of science by these same rules. His two basic premises: 1) the Bible gives a True and real account of creation”

     Samphire: Which version? The one in Genesis 1 or the second version in Genesis 2?

     “and 2) the physical laws in effect today have not always been in effect (LAWS HAVE CHANGED). ”

     Samphire: Your allegation. You prove it.

     “All knowledge of creation is based on these two premises and is therefore scientifically unfalsifiable.”

     Samphire: See above

     “Does this allow Hovind, you, or me to spread lies in the name of knowledge? NO! That is what our investigation here should be about. Are Hovind’s claims false? I will address them one by one as long as interest persists. You have given me many to choose from. Where to start?”

     Samphire: You choose.

105. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 3:51am:

     ---

     trust
     Said this at 1:35pm:
     Trust wrote:

     “I take it you find it acceptable for Hovind to spread inaccuracies as long as he prefaces his comments with ‘it’s just a theory’?

     I do not intend to get into a long debate that can not have an answer. But I will take Dr Kent Hovinds Theory over the lies printed in the textbooks which are being given as facts to our children.

     Theory:
     Scheme or system of ideas etc, held to explain observed facts etc.
     (formulation of) abstract knowledge;systematic statement of general principles;
     (knowledge of)principles or method of art, technical subject, etc,.
     opp practice: mere hypothesis, conjecture, Individual view or notion.
     This is from the Oxford Dictionary.
     Can’t find where it say’s theory is a fact. Yet this is what they tell our children.
     Ray”

     Gordon Bennet, Ray. You seem to have a very short concentration span. Quote “Can’t find where it say’s theory is a fact”. Quote from earlier in message: held to explain observed facts etc”. You seem to be confusing biological evolution as an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution as an explanation of how this observed biological evolution occurs.

106. 

     red lion

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 4:54am:

     ---

     bioteacher
     Said this at 2:51pm:

     “Hovind makes a valid point that evolution is protected with a religious fervor and zeal. This is an accurate assessment. Just look at all the prior discussions. Both sides hold to their own view without giving any ground. (There are some who chose to support both views, but even I can tell you that is foolish. The Bible and Evolution DO NOT MIX! This is very clear by the most rudimentary comparisons. Those that hold to both views are compromising both views to satisfy their indescisiveness.)

     He that has ears to hear, let him hear:

     “And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.” 1 Kings 18:21

107. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 5:01am:

     ---

     Bioteacher wrote:

     “This is my first post on this board. And as I look over the previous posts I am struck by the number of people that are speaking from critically biased perspectives. I understand evolution in it’s entirety”

     You must be very clever.

     ” and I also understand creation.”

     Even cleverer than I first thought!

     “As for my credentials (which apparently carries a lot of weight to some people), I have a BS Science Biology with a focus on ecology, BS Science Chemistry with a focus on General Chemistry, a minor in Phsyics, I have published in several scientific journals, and am pursuing my post-graduate program at an accredited university. Enough of that, let’s move on.

     b_sharp –
     In response to the query regarding human and dinosaur co-existance (sic), you have sited (sic) the ica stones as being fraudulant (sic). ”

     No major in spelling then?

     “This may indeed be the case, I don’t know. However I believe that you are missing and misleading away (sic)

     Or grammar?

     “from many sources of data that support the possible coexistance (sic) of man and dinosaur. Now I’m not going to say this is fact, but there are several bodies of evidence suggesting this possiblity.”

     Such as? And please don’t mention the Pauluxy River tracks.

     “I understand that as a scientist we are highly pressured to support the evolutionary theory, however, a true scientist will have an open mind about alternate possibilities and new and developing evidence.”

     And your point is?

     “I know that there is much controversy over the Paloxy (sic) River tracks, ”

     No there isn’t. They were debunked a long long time ago.

     “and as neither you nor I have seen them in person, we will forgoe (sic) discussing those in depth. But I believe that the information regarding those tracks have (sic) been tampered with in the years since their discovery. I would refer to the details of the first discovery which reported that the tracks were “distinctly human” next to very clear dinosaur tracks.”

     Oh, come on. So what?

     “I would also caution you on using terms such as “earlier strata”. There are also many things that evidence that our currently held belief about the rate of sedimentary depostion is questionable. ”

     Grammar. There is nothing about sedimentary rates of which I am aware which confuses a 6,000 year old universe with a 4.5 billion year old Earth.

     Most notably to me is the evidence of vast numbers of polystrata fossils. For those that don’t know what that means, polystrata fossils are those found vertical or near-vertical across several sedimentary layers. This then should make us question how these remains fossilized and remained intact while the sediment around it took “millions of years” to accumulate.”

     You should do some more reading on the subject. Just because there has been rapid deposition in some areas (modern example of Mount St Helens) does not mean that there has not been much slower deposition elsewhere.

     “A true scientist will evalutate this evidence against their current thought processes. There is controversy (of course) surrounding the fossilized whale, but the clear evidence of thousands of polystrata tree trunks is enough to make me question. The majority of these tree fossils, it is now clear, were not in situ when buried. This means that the trees were not buried in the same place that they were growing. This is shown by the fragmentation of stigmaria roots.”

     Again, as per Mount St Helens.

     “The radiometric dating systems have been shown to be highly inaccurate. Even within our scientific community, we see these dating methods yielding such varied results that we must discard those that we deem are highly inaccurate.”

     On the contrary. Different radiometric methods can be remarkably consistent”

     “This means that we are, in a sense, only keeping the dates that correspond with what we want. If a dating method does not yield reliable dates, it should not be used. (By the way Carbon-14 dating is only accurate for about 1500 years not 50,000 years, sorry)”

     Do you dispute that carbon dating can date an object as being much older than 1,500 years?

     Also, the “Hovind Theory” does not state that a comet/meteor hit the earth. It suggests that Earth passed through the tail of a comet, and that the gravitational pull of the comet combined with the debris altered the angle of the earths (sic) rotation. If you want to attack Hovind’s argument watch the video he put out on his theory and then come back with ammunition. It is multi-faceted. And you are correct in saying it is not a Theory. It cannot be supported through repeatable laboratory tests.”

     Repeatable? Has there even been a single test?

     “It is an hypothesis, I believe the Theory part of the title is innaccurate.” (sic)

     An hypothesis based upon no rational thought whatsoever.

     “Someone earlier-
     Made a comment about the Conservation of Angular Momentum and how it relates to stellar and cosmic evolution. Unfortunately this IS a point that is difficult to overcome with the current Big Bang Theory.”

     Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know only Mr.H. maintains that the singularity was rotating. And with respect to what?

     “Most scientist have forsaken the Big Bang”

     That’s news to me.

     “and have rather said that we don’t know. This is a much more accurate statement. No one knows for certain how things came into existance (sic) in the universe.”

     Presumably, you meant to write “how the universe came into existence”

     “Frank Zindler -
     You said in your response, “While all these journals present evidence supporting the fact of evolution, absolutely none of them reveals any evidence to support the notion that the world is only 6000 years old, that the world was destroyed by a world-encompassing flood in the year 2,348 BCE…” This is an absolutely true statement, however even if there were evidence suggesting any of that would you seriously expect to find it in a journal like that?”

     Yes, most certainly. It would be the most exciting discovery ever. Are you sure that you are a science graduate?

     “Hovind makes a valid point that evolution is protected with (sic) a religious fervor and zeal.”

     Fervor, maybe, but not a religious one.

     “This is an accurate assessment. Just look at all the prior discussions. Both sides hold to their own view without giving any ground. (There are some who chose to support both views, but even I can tell you that is foolish. The Bible and Evolution DO NOT MIX! This is very clear by the most rudimentary comparisons. Those that hold to both views are compromising both views to satisfy their indescisiveness.) (sic) In truth, both evolutionists and creationists look at the evidence that they see around them and they interpret it.”

     I do not agree that creationists look at evidence and interpret it in a rational way. What they do is take isolated observations (polystrata fossils is an excellent example) and then weave a wild story around it to support an unshakeable hypothesis.

     “Both sides can be accused of interpreting things with the foreknowledge of their worldview and thus skewing things in their favor. We can only look at the FACTS of the world around us. These need to be acknowledged without prior theories contaminating the thought processes. This is ideal. Won’t happen though, but it is idea. Even the greatest scientists have difficulty distancing themselves from their opinions. It is human nature.”

     How many new scientific ideas have been postulated and/or accepted over the past, say, 10 years compared to new ideas amongst creationists. It is just maladroit to suggest that science is hide-bound by the individual worldviews of millions of scientists.

     “This is an area of great controversy, and I would invite both sides to present evidence supporting their theory so we can have open discussion. After all, isn’t that how science should work? Let us peer review, let us discuss, and please, let us cease degrading each others character as an attempt to deface (sic) them. Some of you consider the other party crazy, cultish, pig-headed, or whatever. Keep it to yourself. Talk science.”

     Well, we are still waiting, JN, for you to produce some.

     “Sorry so long, and thanks,
     JN”

     Don’t apologise for the length. A 14 billion year old universe has plenty of space for long letters.

108. 

     red lion

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 5:05am:

     ---

     “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:7

109. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 8:34am:

     ---

     M. Hopkins

     Thank you for your input. I have, as you suggested, done some superficial research with respect to cytochrome c. I found things to be just as you say. I can’t reconcile Hovind’s claim that you quoted with the discovered sequencing of sunflowers, humans, and chimps. Perhaps he can, but I doubt it. What does this mean? Is it bad science?

     Let me say that I believe Kent should discontinue his asserting that sunflowers are more like humans than are chimps when comparing the cytochrome c sequencing. I don’t think you have shown here that Kent is a liar or a crackpot. Mistaken? Yes. Overstating a point? Yes. Have you ever been mistaken, overstated a point, or even lied for that matter? I still respect Kent Hovind and as I always have been am skeptical of his claims. I am equally skeptical of the claims made by evolutionists. I have found Kent to be reliable, more reliable in fact than natural scientists where origins are concerned. I do not follow Kent Hovind. Furthermore he would not want me to. I follow the Lord Jesus Christ and none other. He is the only person who has never been mistaken, never overstated, and yes NEVER lied.

     The point of DNA sequencing as a means to show common decent is misguided on many levels. If evolution were true and were to have continued as long as reported, then the sequencing of DNA should probably be more diverse, what with all the mutations and such. If Kent has been guilty of spinning the sequencing of DNA in a creationist path, than evolutionists have been guiltier of spinning such sequencing toward their own world view. I am a mathematician. My training tells me that the sequencing is only a superficial peek at the information content. What SPIN it is indeed to say that chimps and humans are 99% alike because the sequencing of their DNA is 99% similar. My point is this: If Kent Hovind has lied about sunflowers and humans being alike, then naturalistic science has lied about the similarity of chimps and humans. What say you on this point?

     -Mel

110. 

     chaplaindoug

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 9:38am:

     ---

     Dear Samphire:

     You asked, “And logic and probability lead you drectly to an unbreakable belief in the God of the Old Testament?”

     The answer is NO! The human mind will never seek after God until God seeks after him. For the first thirty years of my life I was too busy being my own god. I never bothered to use my engineering mind to think about God. I was too busy thinking about me and what I could accomplish to impress others. It was not until I found myself as a “accomplished” aerospace engineer visiting a psychiatrist every week, taking medication, and not getting any better that someone suggested I might want to consider what God has to say about Himself in the Bible. I had run out of options and life was very scary and dark for me. I was sick and dying. I read the Gospel of John and for the first time realized that if I was to have any hope in the here and hereafter, I needed to bow my knee to Jesus, to trust Him as my physician. This I did. The amazing thing is that I received a peace and HOPE that I never had before. I no longer needed the psychiatrist and I gave him back my pills, I took them no longer. It is this HOPE from God that has allowed me to survive past the age of 50.

     Once I had turned to Christ, then I began to see how every detail of creation screams for a Creator, and actually reveals Him to all who look (Romans 1:20). I could say much more regarding the proof of the truth of the Bible I have seen in true science (versus scientism), but hope that what I have shared answers your question. Thank you for asking.

     I am not being unkind to say that my prayer for you is that God brings you also to a dark end of your road, where you have no alternative but to look up. When and if you turn to Jesus, I guarantee that things will drastically change for you for the better just as they did for me.

     Sincerely,
     ChaplainDoug

111. 

     Vasahond

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 11:51am:

     ---

     Samphire,

     Since it is apparent that you are only here to press your opinion on a good number of people that disagree with you, may I now question your intelligence the same way that you questioned Bioteacher’s. First and foremost, if you’re looking to persuade anybody, I think you’ve come to the wrong place. Likewise, I wouldn’t seek out a message board devoted to the Theory of Evolution and try and tell everybody that they’re wrong. To put it bluntly, that’s just stupid. Thanks though, for your rather useless opinion. Now why don’t you go and share it with somebody that cares? I don’t think you’ll find anybody like that here. Also, if you want to attack Hovind, don’t try and criticize him to his fans.

     Have you ever heard “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”? I think those would be wise words for you to consider. Also, may I point out that I can write a long letter too, and it won’t take me 14 billion years — like your letter. But in all honesty, I can put it more briefly rather than dragging out an already dead point. So, here goes: Macro evolution has never been observed, and therefore cannot be proven. The theory of gravity has been observed, but because we don’t understand the attraction of masses, it is much more than just a mere theory, but because there’s no thorough evidence to explain it, it’s called a theory. We know gravity exists; it just can’t be totally explained. Evolution on the other hand, is the opposite. Evolution has not been observed, but because of speculation, it is a theory. This one is a mere theory; there’s no conclusive evidence to completely support it. People think evolution exists, but it can’t be explained at all. Period.

     So please, accept this complete ownage and post your opinions somewhere where you’re not wasting people’s time. Until then, please do not post here. If you feel so compelled to do so, or to reply or refute what I have said, I’ll be more than willing to shoot you down again.

     Sincerely,

     Vasahond

112. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 12:07pm:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 8:34am:
     “M. Hopkins

     Thank you for your input. I have, as you suggested, done some superficial research with respect to cytochrome c. I found things to be just as you say. I can’t reconcile Hovind’s claim that you quoted with the discovered sequencing of sunflowers, humans, and chimps. Perhaps he can, but I doubt it. What does this mean? Is it bad science?

     Let me say that I believe Kent should discontinue his asserting that sunflowers are more like humans than are chimps when comparing the cytochrome c sequencing. I don’t think you have shown here that Kent is a liar or a crackpot. Mistaken? Yes. Overstating a point? Yes. Have you ever been mistaken, overstated a point, or even lied for that matter? ”

     But, with respect, you miss the point. It took you just a few hours to discover Mr.H’s errors on cytochrome c and you are generous enough to admit the error. However, Mr H has been told on many occasions that he is wrong on the point but he still continues to teach it. So much for his complaints about alleged errors in the text books.

     “I still respect Kent Hovind and as I always have been am skeptical of his claims. I am equally skeptical of the claims made by evolutionists. I have found Kent to be reliable, more reliable in fact than natural scientists where origins are concerned. I do not follow Kent Hovind. Furthermore he would not want me to. I follow the Lord Jesus Christ and none other. He is the only person who has never been mistaken, never overstated, and yes NEVER lied.”

     Never mistaken? What was it that he said about the mustard seed growing into a tree and about the light of the moon and how he would spend three days and three nights in the ground?

     “The point of DNA sequencing as a means to show common decent is misguided on many levels. If evolution were true and were to have continued as long as reported, then the sequencing of DNA should probably be more diverse, what with all the mutations and such.”

     Perhaps you missed last week’s news. That is just what they are presently finding in the human genome.

     ” If Kent has been guilty of spinning the sequencing of DNA in a creationist path, than evolutionists have been guiltier of spinning such sequencing toward their own world view.”

     ” I am a mathematician. My training tells me that the sequencing is only a superficial peek at the information content. What SPIN it is indeed to say that chimps and humans are 99% alike because the sequencing of their DNA is 99% similar. My point is this: If Kent Hovind has lied about sunflowers and humans being alike, then naturalistic science has lied about the similarity of chimps and humans. What say you on this point?”

     You are correct if you include junk DNA but I would not use the words lying or spin. I think that what the geneticists are referring to when they talk of an organism’s DNA being 98% similar to another’s are the protein-coding exons rather than the entirety of the genome. As these exons in the human genome are only 1% to 2% of the entire genome then that leaves approximately 98% of the genome to be completely different to all other genomes without affecting the development of the organism.

     Samphire

113. 

     JackGramm

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 12:20pm:

     ---

     Dear Kent,

     I’m sorry to hear about your trials. I’m an old brother in the faith from Bloomington, IL that attended the church where you were saved for many years. I moved to Phoenix 3 years ago. I had lost track of your ministry in the meantime.

     I’m praying for you and want to thank you for your great example to your fellow prisoners. May God bless you and keep you in His Everlasting Arms.

     Jack

114. 

     bioteacher

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 12:22pm:

     ---

     Samphire – First of all, you have made an excellent point. You have clearly demonstrated exactly what I said people were doing on this blog. You spent over half of your response to me picking at spelling
     and grammar and inserting your own witty, distracting comments in an attempt to pick at me character and my credibility. I am a scientist not an English professor; I have editors that do that for me.

     Now moving on to the few valid points you made in your response…

     “There is nothing about sedimentary rates of which I am aware which confuses a 6,000 year old universe with a 4.5 billion year old Earth.”
     “You should do some more reading on the subject. Just because there has been rapid deposition in some areas (modern example of Mount St Helens) does not mean that there has not been much slower deposition elsewhere.”

     That is very true Samphire, the presence of polystrate fossils does not necessitate that rapid deposition has occurred everywhere. True it can point to only localized events; however it is the frequency and the vastness of these fossils being found across the globe that might cause a critical mind to think about the true rate of deposition globally. Also I might add that the layers that these fossils have been found passing through are determined to have the same characteristics as corresponding layers in the “geologic column”. This means that, had the fossils not been found in multiple layers, scientists would have thought said layers were a normal representation of the “column”.

     “Different radiometric methods can be remarkably consistent. Do you dispute that carbon dating can date an object as being much older than 1,500 years?”

     Samphire, I will address the problems with radiometric dating in my next post.

     “Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know only Mr.H. maintains that the singularity was rotating. And with respect to what?”

     Then that is even better news! If only Dr. Hovind claims the singularity is rotating then that means, when the singularity exploded NONE of the matter was rotating?!?! This then poses a huge problem for Big Bang theorists, in that now you don’t even have any initial angular momentum. How then, Samphire, did all of the matter in the universe begin spinning, when after the Big Bang it was all rushing away from a central point (and from all other matter) through a frictionless environment?! And you better be careful about violating any physical laws in your response, because that is about all the Big Bang does.

     Bioteacher wrote – “…however even if there were evidence suggesting [Earth was ~6000 years old] would you seriously expect to find it in a journal like that?”

     Samphire wrote – “Yes, most certainly. It would be the most exciting discovery ever. Are you sure that you are a science graduate?”

     Again, thank you for your pointless attempt at discrediting me. And there is no way a discovery like that would be published. You have clearly demonstrated the type of close-minded protectiveness that most Evolutionists hold to when discussing anything that might jeopardize their theory. I have a friend working as a curator at the Smithsonian. He has told me about the vast number of archeological finds that are being stored (hidden) in the basements of the museum simply because they contradict the current evolutionary theory.

     Samphire wrote – “I do not agree that creationists look at evidence and interpret it in a rational way.

     I agree that many creationists do not look at evidence as you said. However many evolutionists are no better. And by the way, why don’t you re-read what I wrote. I never stated that creationists look at evidence and interpret it in a rational way. I said “both evolutionists and creationists look at the evidence that they see around them and they interpret it.” This is true. Don’t misquote people.

     “How many new scientific ideas have been postulated and/or accepted over the past, say, 10 years compared to new ideas amongst creationists. It is just maladroit to suggest that science is hide-bound by the individual worldviews of millions of scientists.”

     Again Samphire you are misleading. Creationism is a religious belief (as is evolution to a degree) not science and thus is not postulating new scientific ideas. Also, I never suggested that science is “hide-bound” by the individual worldviews of millions of scientists. I said that scientists have difficulty separating themselves from their preconceived conclusions and opinions. Stop doing that.

     Samphire you have disappointed me in your entire presentation. You have resorting to misleading, misquoting, and distracting from the case in order to try and discredit me. In your next post, please grow up and behave like a grown adult (and maybe even try to act like a scientist).

     JN

     And regarding the journals that I have published in: The Science Teacher, and Science Activities. And before you say anything attacking the validity of these journals to our current debate, realize that I am a teacher so it would make sense for me to publish articles in the appropriate journals.

115. 

     JeffClark

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 12:27pm:

     ---

     Apart from praying, how can we fight this?

116. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 12:30pm:

     ---

     chaplaindoug
     Said this at 9:38am:
     “Dear Samphire:

     You asked, “And logic and probability lead you drectly to an unbreakable belief in the God of the Old Testament?”

     The answer is NO! The human mind will never seek after God until God seeks after him.”

     Really? That is not what you say below. You say that you ran out of options and that you realized that you needed to bow the knee to Jesus.

     “For the first thirty years of my life I was too busy being my own god. I never bothered to use my engineering mind to think about God. I was too busy thinking about me and what I could accomplish to impress others. It was not until I found myself as a “accomplished” aerospace engineer visiting a psychiatrist every week, taking medication, and not getting any better that someone suggested I might want to consider what God has to say about Himself in the Bible. I had run out of options and life was very scary and dark for me. I was sick and dying. I read the Gospel of John and for the first time realized that if I was to have any hope in the here and hereafter, I needed to bow my knee to Jesus, to trust Him as my physician. This I did. The amazing thing is that I received a peace and HOPE that I never had before. I no longer needed the psychiatrist and I gave him back my pills, I took them no longer. It is this HOPE from God that has allowed me to survive past the age of 50.”

     I am pleased that you are feeling better. For myself, I have never felt the need for either a psychiatrist or a belief in the supernatural.

     “Once I had turned to Christ, then I began to see how every detail of creation screams for a Creator, and actually reveals Him to all who look (Romans 1:20). I could say much more regarding the proof of the truth of the Bible I have seen in true science (versus scientism), but hope that what I have shared answers your question. Thank you for asking”

     Please give me an example or two concerning true science (whatever that may be) proving the truth of the Bible. By the way, do you actually believe that corpses crawled out of their graves at the time of the cricifixion and strolled around Jerusalem (Matthew 27.53)?

     “I am not being unkind to say that my prayer for you is that God brings you also to a dark end of your road, where you have no alternative but to look up”

     You have a warped sense of kindness.

     “When and if you turn to Jesus, I guarantee that things will drastically change for you for the better just as they did for me.”

     I trust that I will never have to resort to deliberately casting aside my reason in favour of bronze-age myths.

     “Sincerely,
     ChaplainDoug”

     Kind regards

     Samphire

117. 

     JeffClark

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 12:54pm:

     ---

     Here’s what I’ve done so far. Anyone who can help me please do. You can email me info at whitetiger828@hotmail.com.
     1) I called the governor’s office, Jeb’s secretary has never heard of this case. She said she would let him know about it.
     2) I sent emails to the FL governor’s office in general, and also to Jeb’s personal email.
     3) I called CSE to get more information but the secretary there was not able to give me any info either.

     If we leave it up to the judicial system, we can likely expect more of the same. God will act, but through whom? FIGHT!

118. 

     trust

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 1:40pm:

     ---

     Gordon Bennet, Ray. You seem to have a very short concentration span. Quote “Can’t find where it say’s theory is a fact”. Quote from earlier in message: held to explain observed facts etc”. You seem to be confusing biological evolution as an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution as an explanation of how this observed biological evolution occurs.

     In answer to the above I was thinking of the school textbooks on biological evolution
     that have lies in them, and are taught to our kids as facts.

     As for my attention span that could be age or that I only write somthing when I get upset. I hate to see anyone getting personal and using degrading comments. I believe in love your enemies, and treat them as you would like to be treated. God bless, Ray

119. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 2:16pm:

     ---

     Gressil,

     I apologize if my responses are not timely enough for you. I assure you that I will pay close attention to each and every point brought up here. However, I did ask for these one at a time. I will not address more than one at a time. I have already apologized for the e-mouth comment and have agreed to civil discourse. Would you agree to the same or do you intend to continue to accuse people of being cowards and liars with no real justification to do so?

     -Mel

120. 

     fzindler

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 3:43pm:

     ---

     Bioteacher (does this ID mean s/he is a biology teacher?) mentions the Paloxy (sic) River tracks as though there is still some small possibility they are genuine and human. Many years ago, immediately after the Rev. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Carl Baugh announced his claim that there were human footprints in the midst of a dinosaur trackway, I had the occasion to visit the Palluxy River to study the exact prints Baugh claimed to have discovered. Like many other people untrained in geology or paleontology, Baugh viewed the entire surface of the earth the way people view a Rorschach ink-blot: he saw what he wanted to see.

     When I viewed the tracks, it is true that several of them looked astonishingly human, albeit rather large. However, it soon became clear that all the putative human tracks were positioned in exactly the same way in relation to the footprints of three-toed dinosaurs in which they were embedded. Since all the dinosaur prints had not yet been exposed at the time, it was perhaps not obvious to Baugh and the many other creationists (e.g. John Morris of ICR) what the situation really was. First of all, it was obvious that the “human” prints were going in the exact opposite direction to the dinosaur tracks. Further examination revealed that the “human” prints were nothing more than INDIVIDUAL TOE-PRINTS of the three-toed dinosaur. What appeared to be the heel of a human footprint was actually the claw-end of the dinosaur toeprint, the supposed toe-end of the human print was the base of the dinosaur toe.

     After several years of wrangling, involving many paleontologists and creationists, virtually everyone agreed the Palluxy prints were not human. Even John Morris admitted it. It should be noted, however, that the tracks in the river-bottom were not the only ones to be cited by creationists as evidence of human coexistence with dinosaurs. In the same locale, various enterprising Texans began to take advantage of all the true-believers who were making pilgrimages to the Palluxy River. They began to sell plaster and even aluminized casts of “big-foot” prints, pseudofossils created just for sale.

     Mentioning pseudofossils, I should note that there are many objects found in nature that often confound non-geologists due to their similarity to common items familiar to humans. I remember in particular excavating a site once with students when we excavated a number of concretions shaped just like giant donuts. I explained that these were the remains of an antediluvian Dunkin-Donuts shop run by giants (Citing Genesis to the effect that “there were giants in the earth in those days”) and that these donuts had been preserved by Noah’s Flood. At least one student carried that bit of knowledge into the final exam. In any case, the Palluxy River tracks are human to the exact extent that the concretions were giant donuts.

     Concerning the sunflower cytochrome c: My guess is that Kent got all this misinformation (or at least the idea for producing it) from Duane Gish of ICR — a guy who actually has a valid Ph.D. in biochemistry. In a debate (I seem to remember it was on PBS), Gish made the claim that there were certain bullfrog proteins that were closer to the human counterparts than were the chimpanzee proteins. This was, of course, patent nonsense and Gish was challenged repeatedly over the years to reveal the names of the proteins and the source that had sequenced them. Naturally, he never did. In one of my debates with him, I challenged him: “Give us your bull-FROG PROTEINS, Dr. Gish, not just your BULL!”

     On DNA sequences, Mel had this to say:

     “The point of DNA sequencing as a means to show common decent is misguided on many levels. If evolution were true and were to have continued as long as reported, then the sequencing of DNA should probably be more diverse, what with all the mutations and such. If Kent has been guilty of spinning the sequencing of DNA in a creationist path, than evolutionists have been guiltier of spinning such sequencing toward their own world view. I am a mathematician. My training tells me that the sequencing is only a superficial peek at the information content. What SPIN it is indeed to say that chimps and humans are 99% alike because the sequencing of their DNA is 99% similar. My point is this: If Kent Hovind has lied about sunflowers and humans being alike, then naturalistic science has lied about the similarity of chimps and humans. What say you on this point?”

     There seems to be some fundamental incomprehension concerning what actually is being studied. Each DNA sequence is, in effect, a recipe for making a particular protein or control switch. In the case of complete genome sequences, we are looking at the recipe for making and regulating the development and functioning of an entire organism. Sequences diverge from each other in approximate proportion to the amount of time since they shared a common ancestor. Thus, the human and Neanderthal genomes diverge only about 0.5%, because they shared a common ancestor less than a million years ago. Humans and chimps diverge only a bit more than 1.0%, because they had a common ancestor 5 to 7 million years ago. Humans and gorillas diverge by about 2.0% because their ancestors parted ways a bit more than 5 to 7 million years ago. Compared to the sea urchin genome, however, humans and gorillas differ by the same enormous amount, because the human-gorilla common ancestor with the sea urchin parted company more than 500 million years ago.

     When the human and ape DNA sequence data are integrated with information about how genes are packaged in chromosomes, we have a very convincing picture of the evolutionary stages that were involved in the conversion of an ancient ape species into the modern ape species and humans. Add to that, the fact that we share many pseudogenes (genes that still encode a protein but can’t be activated to do so) and even viral genes PACKAGED IN THE SAME WAY IN THE GENOMES, it becomes clear that this cannot be the intended product of some Intelligen Designer, but rather is the natural result of evolution.

     I realize that even though I have tried to make this as simple as possible, some may yet find it a bit difficult to understand. There is, however, no easy substitute for an eduction in real biology. Instead of repeating straw-man arguments concerning DNA sequences, everyone should get a good college textbook on Molecular Genetics and work through it to fully comprehend the mechanics involved. Then no one will think scientists are claiming that “chimps and humans are 99% alike because the sequencing (sic) of their DNA is 99% similar.”

     The big excitement now in the scientific journals is how to explain the enormous apparent differences between humans and chimps, when the recipes to produce them are almost 99% the same — mere microevolutionary differences. Needless to say, within the next two or three years this will be understood. Then, genetic engineers theoretically could manufacture organisms arbitrarily more intermediate between chimps and humans by transferring the relevant human genes into chimps. (This can be done quite easily, human genes can be transferred even into bacteria, to produce human insulin, for example.)

     It now appears (very preliminary informtion) that we differ by around 100 genes and/or control sequences. Assuming that to be true for the sake of argument, how many human genes would we have to transfer before we create an ethical problem? Almost certainly, no one would object to transferring 2 or 3 genes, producing an organism a tiny bit more human than a chimp. But what if we transferred 51% of the genes? Would the being who is now 51% more similar to us than a chimp still be an animal? Would it have an immortal soul? Would it need to be baptized?

     For reason,

     Frank Zindler

121. 

     lynnbaker

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 3:55pm:

     ---

     I loved Ken’t letter. He knows first hand so many things that can’t be learned any other way. God has allowed this though we will continue to pray for his freedom. So many life changing experiences to endure in such a brief time. I praise God for the evidence of His presence in that prison with Kent. He has been willing to endure all things for the principles he has lived by and the water is very deep of what he is required to endure in defense of his beliefs. I don’t understand all about the taxes. What I do know is that Kent Hovind is a Godly man who lives by God’s Word as he understands it. It is much more complicated than pay Ceaser what is due. Deep values lie beneath this that have prevailed in his willingness to sacrifice and suffer, his family and he, and his ministry to defend them. It is courage few of us have any idea about.

     I know what Kent Hovind did for my son. He turned his world on for Christ. He turned his world upside down from superficial values to values of truth, God’s truth. Joe Baker, my son, went from being an average teenager, to a teenager on fire for his faith, to defend it. He went from a boy who knew nothing of creation science, to one who learned it, lived it, and breathed it. Then he began to teach it himself to youth all over the country.

     For months my son watched Kent’s video tapes over and over, every day, till we all almost memorized them. He learned all he could about Creation Science and how to defend it. Kent, himself, took a deep interest in my son, and came to our public high school in Perkasie, Pa to debate. I never will have any idea where the over 1200 people came from that packed the auditorium that night. It was an amazing gift from our awesome God. Kent lit my son, Joe, on fire at the age of 15 and that light still shines brightly in Joe today at age 24. He has an awesome ministry called liveoffensively for God at liveoffensively.com. Kent taught him how to stand boldly for truth. Kent taught Joe to defend the truth.

     Kent has remained Joe’s friend. Through all these years he has always found time to encourage Joe in so many ways.He even welcomes Joe in his home. He is a true friend to my son, a stranger kid from Pa.

     When we heard that Kent has been put in prison we felt such sadness. It was like a black cloud of grief to know the sorrow he would endure and his family. Joe has another friend in prison, so he knows a little about all the injustice that often goes with it.

     So, we are sad, but rejoice in this letter from Kent Hovind. God never stops using us even though sometimes we have fewer people to reach. God never deals only in big numbers. Sometimes He sets us apart, just to be alone with us. Kent will find God’s best for him, wherever he is. lynn baker

122. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 4:12pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     I like you. That is not a proposition. I am married and have three children. What’s more we disagree on too many points.

     The theory of evolution and creation theory are both scientifically un-falsifiable because there is no way of knowing the distant past by observation. All we can do is make supposition based on premise. Sure I can spin my wheels trying to show evolution is false but the explanations for it are so ad hoc. Name a set of observations that would falsify evolution. Well God could come down and tell you to your face what He did. Now that will happen but I lack the authority to tell Him to do that today. Otherwise, I can’t fathom a set of conditions that would do the trick. According to Popper, this is required for a theory to be falsifiable.

     In case we agree on the ideal gas law, I choose the Biblical flood as our next topic. I will refresh my memory of what it is Hovind claims and in my next post give my thoughts. Is that o,k.?

     -Mel

123. 

     Maturekid

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 4:50pm:

     ---

     Wow

     JN had a very reasonable request. “This is an area of great controversy, … please, let us cease degrading each others character as an attempt to deface them. … Keep it to yourself. Talk science.”

     Answering his post by degrading him proves his point. Talk science not vitriol.

     The Big Bang Theory is refuted here http://www.creationism.org/heinze/EvolutionReligion.htm with basic logic. Just read it with an open mind and not a preset attack mode.

     A very good book that refutes the next step in the Evolution concept is located here http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0123.asp?FROM=bookad. It is an online book so again read without a preset attack mode.

     As for Frank Zindler’s claim on the dolphin, this is overstating the evidence to fit a particular argument. “The same issue published a brief notice of the capture of a dolphin with the remnants of hind legs — … do just fine without?)” Here is the link w/ photos of the dolphin in question: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/?GT1=8717 As the pictures show, there are no hind legs, no hind feet, just an extra set of fins or flippers. There could be a 4 finned dolphin species or it could be a freak genetic mutation like a child with three arms http://www.physorg.com/news68889103.html or a calf with 5 legs and 6 hooves http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/calf%20_born_5_legs_6_hooves.htm a fish with two mouths http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2005-12-23-two-mouthed-fish_x.htm or any of the well documented 2 headed snakes, turtles, etc. An extra set of flippers on 1 dolphin doesn’t prove anything except 1 dolphin had an extra set of flippers. Either it will be absorbed back into the genetic code and fade away or it may be a different species. (I doubt we’ve checked the butts of every dolphin in the vast oceans.) Distorting facts to fit a belief is what JN was referring too as a fault on both sides. It doesn’t help either argument.

     Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the variety of points or methodology of Kent Horvind, he does accomplish a goal of getting people to look at the topics from another persepective and research them. That is far better than blindly accepting what is put out there by either side. Neither side can be validated by testing as both are firmly based on belief systems that never were or could be witnessed by someone living today or in existing documents.

124. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 5:40pm:

     ---

     Vasahond
     Said this at 11:51am:
     “Samphire,

     Since it is apparent that you are only here to press your opinion on a good number of people that disagree with you”

     Incorrect. I do not post to ‘press’ my opinion but to question those who have an unbendable fixation of their own. In contrast, the theory of evolution is an evolving theory.

     ” may I now question your intelligence the same way that you questioned Bioteacher’s.”

     I have not questioned his/her intelligence although you are at liberty to question mine. However, it is disturbing that someone who claims a string of degrees and is a teacher (which I assume from his/her handle) cannot string together a grammatical sentence or spell korekly.

     “I hav First and foremost, if you’re looking to persuade anybody, I think you’ve come to the wrong place. Likewise, I wouldn’t seek out a message board devoted to the Theory of Evolution and try and tell everybody that they’re wrong. To put it bluntly, that’s just stupid. Thanks though, for your rather useless opinion. Now why don’t you go and share it with somebody that cares? I don’t think you’ll find anybody like that here”

     Really? Have you read all the foregoing posts?

     “Also, if you want to attack Hovind, don’t try and criticize him to his fans”

     Why not, you killjoy? It would be pointless criticizing him to his oponents. I don’t attack Hovind as a person. I haven’t met him but I suspect from the reports of those who have that he is extremely charming, pleasant and kind. But I do attack his ideas which I believe are, using your word, stupid; the youngsters he addresses deserve better. I also attack his hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

     “Have you ever heard “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”? I think those would be wise words for you to consider”

     Possibly, but I don’t understand them. Please expand – it is not a current English saying. Are you suggesting that many years ago, against your wishes, you became convinced of the alleged truth of the creation myth and therefore remain convinced. For myself, I grew up in a relatively fundamentalist Christian household and took many years to “evolve” my thoughts and beliefs. They continue to evolve.

     “Also, may I point out that I can write a long letter too, and it won’t take me 14 billion years — like your letter.”

     It was a joke about time and space. I’m sorry it passed you by.

     “But in all honesty, I can put it more briefly rather than dragging out an already dead point. So, here goes: Macro evolution has never been observed, and therefore cannot be proven.”

     In that case do you understand that, in your philosophy, God through Noah’s flood destroyed something in excess of 99.9% of the species he had spent two or three whole days creating? Why would he do that? Did he cock up big time? About 45 years ago I asked the same question of a Jehovah’s witness. She told me that perhaps the dinasaurs were placed on earth to fertilise the ground. I did not have the quick enough wit to respond that, in that case, it was all a bit pointless because the flood covered over all the crap.

     “The theory of gravity has been observed, but because we don’t understand the attraction of masses, it is much more than just a mere theory, but because there’s no thorough evidence to explain it, it’s called a theory. We know gravity exists; it just can’t be totally explained”

     Who mentioned gravity – apart from you? Evidence does not “explain” anything. We have to use our brains to derive explanations for the evidence. That is why, rather like preparing your own meals at home, it is will always be much more satisfying to seek out explanations rather than relying on take-away bronze-age myths.

     “Evolution on the other hand, is the opposite. Evolution has not been observed, but because of speculation, it is a theory”

     Incorrect Speculation does not make a theory. At best it makes an hypothesis. The birth of the ToE was ineluctable to many educated Christians because of the weight of evidence which the Genesis story could not explain. Perhaps you need to study the historical origins which led to the theory. May I suggest you start with Alan Cutler’s easy-reading biography on Nicolaus Steno then perhaps you will understand the prerogative that led towards Darwin’s thinking.

     “This one is a mere theory; there’s no conclusive evidence to completely support it. People think evolution exists, but it can’t be explained at all. Period.”

     There is a billion tons of physical evidence and plenty more. There is currently a strain of bird flu evolving in the Far East which will put many millions of us in an early grave. No more than one hundred yards from where I sit here in England there is a graveyard where many young Canadian servicemen lie. They survived the Great War but were struck down within a few months of it ending by the flu epidemic which swept the world in 1918/19. Only an idiot would suggest that evolution has no proof. Come over here and read the proof on their gravestones.

     There is no such thing as “conclusive” evidence for any scientific theory as science is a work in progress. Unlike Christianity, it does not suffer from stifling dogma or, should I say, stifling dogmas depending upon which version you believe?

     “So please, accept this complete ownage”

     Gibberish

     “and post your opinions somewhere where you’re not wasting people’s time”

     No-one is forcing anybody to read my drivel. Do you own the website? If so, you are free to delete my posts. Does the “hond” of your username indicate that you are a Hovind? In which case, please note that I hope Mrs Hovind escapes gaol – it would serve no useful purpose.

     “Until then, please do not post here. If you feel so compelled to do so, or to reply or refute what I have said, I’ll be more than willing to shoot you down again.”

     a. you haven’t actually said anything of any import.

     b. you haven’t shot me down. Have another go.

     If it is of any comfort, in a few hours I leave for a long weekend motoring through cheese-eating surrender monkey country and hope to return, dv, next Tuesday evening. If you do not hear from me by Wednesday it is because either I haven’t finished eating all the cheese or else I have been taken by the Rapture – and you are still here.

     Many kind regards

     Samphire

125. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 6:02pm:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 4:12pm:
     “Samphire,

     I like you. That is not a proposition. I am married and have three children. What’s more we disagree on too many points.”

     Hey, mfox – I like you too. [ Edited – Inappropriate ].
     “In case we agree on the ideal gas law, I choose the Biblical flood as our next topic. I will refresh my memory of what it is Hovind claims and in my next post give my thoughts. Is that o,k.?”

     Certainly, if you wish. You mentioned in an earlier post the change in physical laws over time. A discussion on Mr.H’s views on the speed of light might be easier to debate – but I leave it to you. Just note from an earlier jestful post that I am away till the middle of next week.

     Before you set fingers to keys have a look at “home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm” and compare it to what Mr H states about the world-wide absence of the geologic column. There are more erudite web references but I do not have them to hand. The point is, how could a catastrophic flood have laid down coal beds and desert sands in between all the other sedimentary layers?

     Samphire

126. 

     Samphire

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 6:14pm:

     ---

     Trust
     Said this at 1:40pm:
     Gordon Bennet, Ray. You seem to have a very short concentration span. Quote “Can’t find where it say’s theory is a fact”. Quote from earlier in message: held to explain observed facts etc”. You seem to be confusing biological evolution as an observed fact and the Theory of Evolution as an explanation of how this observed biological evolution occurs.

     In answer to the above I was thinking of the school textbooks on biological evolution
     that have lies in them, and are taught to our kids as facts.

     Untrue facts are not necessarily lies but mistakes. “You look nice in that purpley-green dress, darling” is not necessarily a lie – just self-preservation.

     “As for my attention span that could be age”

     Same here – don’t worry about it.

     “or that I only write somthing when I get upset. I hate to see anyone getting personal and using degrading comments. I believe in love your enemies, and treat them as you would like to be treated. God bless, Ray”

     Why would you get upset? God can look look after Himself, can’t He?

     Kind regards

     Samphire

127. 

     Jason

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 6:22pm:

     ---

     Hi Kent, & anyone else concerned about injustice.

     I only found out about your imprisonment about 3-4 days ago, and I have to say I’m disgusted about it.

     I’ve been emailing various other Christian ministries concerning you. In each message I’ve sent I’ve included a link to….

     Freedom2Fascism by Aaron Russo

     http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism

     This video totally highlights the injustice, and wrongful conviction against you. Should you (Kent) withhold what is not yours from who earned it, and give it to someone else? The fact that you are now in prison because you paid what was owed to whom it was owed is an absolute scandle.

     I implore all who are reading this message to petition as many Christian ministries as you know, asking them to view the Video linked above, explore the questions raised and search their hearts as to whether they think Kent’s conviction is right in the light of this controversy.

     We need people talking about this as much as possible, the more we talk the less power is given to the corrupt bullies of society. The less we talk, the more the bullies will feel empowered to instill fear to keep you quiet as to their corruption.

     Please talk please write, and please encourage others to do likewise.

     Thanks

     Jason xXx

128. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 6:39pm:

     ---

     Frank,

     You wrote:

     “Sequences diverge from each other in approximate proportion to the amount of time since they shared a common ancestor.”

     Come on Frank, you do not know this to be true. I don’t believe you are lying but you are certainly grossly overstating what it is you know for sure. It is part of a fine sounding argument. I have studied text books on molecular genetics as well as population genetics. I have fully worked through the proposed scheme. What I found was a lot of wishful thinking. I am not trying to say the work is without merit. I simply repeat that the conclusions are in reality conjectures. If you want to believe them, go right ahead. If you take as an axiom that all things can be explained by natural processes, then this common ancestor story would be very comforting.

     From the perspective of science, we know next to nothing about where all this information stored in the genome came from and are just now getting a dim view of how it is transferred from one generation to the next. What is clear is that mechanisms are in place to prevent the macro evolution while allowing the micro, sexual reproduction being one of them.

     You can without question retort that if I choose to believe special creation on the authority of the written word of God, then the story of Adam and Eve would be comforting to me. But please don’t deny your faith in natural material processes.

     -Mel

129. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 7:17pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     The Bible says in Genesis 7 11-24:

     In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
     12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
     13In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
     14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
     15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
     16And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
     17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
     18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
     19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
     20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
     21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
     22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
     23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
     24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

     I take as an axiom that this account is true. Unless you can show that the universe is a closed and isolated system, then the whole occurrence could have been the work of an outside force completely foreign to this physical universe. That fact alone precludes you from making any claim that I am making a false premise. If this be too fantastic for you, you might say “well you can make up any crazy story about origins with no fear of scientific rebuttal.” This is true, why you could even make up a story of how we evolved from rocks, rain, and randomness if you wanted to.

     It is reasonable to expect there to be remnants and or physical signs that these events took place. Indeed there are: the Grand Canyon, vastly deep and wide coal deposits, rock and earth formations which are obvious products of cataclysmic upheavals and many others. Certainly if you reject my premise in favor of yours, you will turn to other plausible explanations for these remnants. I do not forbid this course.

     Hovind is simply proposing some plausible physical explanations for the events surrounding the world wide cataclysmic flood described in the Bible. You can’t say for sure that the water canopy is an impossibility. You can’t say for sure that vast underground storehouses of water were not in place pre-flood. You can’t say for sure that the earth was not entirely different before the flood. You can’t say for sure that great ice balls from space did not strike the earth about four to ten thousand years ago. Unless of course you have a different set of axioms under which you operate but even then you can’t be sure scientifically. I am not here to tell you your axioms are invalid. I am just here to tell you that they exist. Without the Uniformatarian Principle, you got nothin. Without the Bible, I have nothing.

     -Mel

130. 

     bioteacher

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 7:56pm:

     ---

     Well stated Maturekid!! Great line here – “An extra set of flippers on 1 dolphin doesn’t prove anything except 1 dolphin had an extra set of flippers.” Haha, that is the kind of logic that many of today’s scientists seem to be lacking. They are vainly searching for something, anything to support the evolutionary theory. Then when something comes up they display it as conclusive evidence when all it may be is a random mutation (most often deleterious not beneficial).

     Fzindler – the beginning of your post on the Pauloxy River tracks was well stated. I would argue that if indeed the tracks were human, that it would be in-line with the evolutionist community to present the story of the tracks being dinosaur tracks of some variety. I don’t know for certain, but this is one area that I don’t readily buy into one way or the other, hence I decided to completely bypass discussing them.

     In this post I will be addressing the issues involved in radiometric dating.

     Each dating method can only have accuracy IF certain assumptions ALWAYS apply to EACH specimen that is tested. The following are a list of the some of the assumptions made in radiometric dating:
     1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process. However, as most of you probably know, there is no such thing as a closed system.
     2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. Unfortunately this can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
     3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Again, there is no way of confirming this. It very well may be true, but we don’t know for certain. Rates are statistical averages not deterministic constants. It is a known fact among scientists that decay rates can and do change. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered (1) if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (ie. Neutrinos); (2) if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; (3) if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or (4) if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.
     4) If any change occurred in the past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.
     5) Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time (half-life) of radioactive minerals. The Van Allen belt is a belt of radiation that circles Earth (450 miles above the surface) and emits three to four thousand times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that hit the Earth’s surface.

     There are roughly 20 methods of dating that are used today. I will list them for any who are interested and if you have questions regarding any of them please email me at bioteacherJN@gmail.com. Because of the focus on radiocarbon dating I will focus on that with some passing comments on others. The following are the dating methods: Uranium-lead, Thorium-lead, Lead 210, Helium, Rubidium-strontium, Potassium-argon, Potassium-calcium, Strata and fossil, Radiocarbon, Amino acid decomposition, Racemization, Astronomical, Paleomagnetic, Varve, Tree ring, Buried forest strata, Peat, Reef, Thermolumiescence, Stalactite.

     Radiocarbon – the following are the assumptions of radiocarbon dating.
     1) Atmospheric carbon – this must have remained constant for the past millions of years.
     2) Oceanic carbon – the very large amount of carbon in the oceans cannot have change
     3) Cosmic rays – the amount of cosmic rays hitting Earth’s surface has not changed.
     4) Balance of rates – the rates of formation and decay of C-14 have always been in balance
     5) Decay rates – have never changed
     6) No contamination – Nothing has ever contaminated a specimen (see point 2 above)
     7) No seepage – the introduction of new C-14 post-mortem cannot have occurred (ie. Water seepage) Amount of C-14 at death – the amount of C-14 in the original sample at the time of death must be known.
     9) C-14 half life – this must be accurately determined
     10) Atmospheric nitrogen – as a precursor to C-14 this must have always been at the same level as today.
     11) Instrumentation and analysis – Equipment must be precise, functional, and without experimental errors.
     12) Uniform results – The technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.
     13) Earth’s magnetic field – must have been the same in the past as today.

     I won’t belabor you with expounding upon each of the afore mentioned points, I’m sure you are capable of reasoning on your own that C-14 dating is unreliable.

     Uranium dating- This process is where uranium and thorium degrade to lead. This has many problems facing it as well.
     1) Lead could originally have been integral or adjacent to the sample. However, it is assumed that the amount of lead present is entirely daughter products.
     2) Leaching occurs readily in nature. This is seen when a weak acid solution comes in contact with the sample and some of the lead, in this case, is lost.
     3) The different types of lead found in a sample must also be considered when dating.
     4) Neutron capture is also problematic in Uranium dating. This problem forms when lead 207 (the daughter product) is form from lead 206 simply by the capture of neutrons from neighboring substances rather than from thorium 232 decay.
     5) It is also well known by nuclear researchers that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings. This is complicated by the fact that all rocks (according to the evolutionary theory) were formed under intense heat or are still subject to intense heat (in the form of pressure).

     Helium dating is equally invalid due to the incredibly high leakage rate of helium.

     Rubidium-strontium – Rubidium 87 gradually decays into strontium 87.
     1) Experts have yet been unable to agree upon the length of rubidum half-life. This renders it useless for dating purposes.
     2) Strontium is also subject to high levels of leaching. This shows that much of the strontium present is likely non-radiogenic and may not even be sourced in the sample.

     Questions about any of this? Or about another dating method? Email me at bioteacherjn@gmail.com or post it.
     Thanks
     -JN

131. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 8:44pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     Some odds and ends along the way:

     If Jesus calls what the mustard seed grows into a tree than it is a tree. That is what it means to have all authority given to you.

     We read from Matthew 16: 21

     21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

     If Friday be the first day then Sunday bet he third day, right.

     Let’s count how many times I tell you that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable before you correct the error of your ways.

     The following is from Wikipedia
     “The human genome has many different regulatory sequence which are crucial to controlling gene expression. These are typically short sequences that appear near and within genes. A systematic understanding of these regulatory sequences and how they together act as a gene regulatory network is only beginning to emerge from high-throughput expression and comparative genomics studies.
     Identification of regulatory sequences relies in part on evolutionary conservation. The evolutionary branch between the human and mouse, for example, occurred 70-90 million years ago. So computer comparisons of gene sequences that identify conserved non-coding sequences will be an indication of their importance in duties such as gene regulation.
     Another comparative genomic approach to locating regulatory sequences in humans is the gene sequencing of the puffer fish. These vertebrates have essentially the same genes and regulatory gene sequences as humans, but with only one-eighth the “junk” DNA. The compact DNA sequence of the puffer fish makes it much easier to locate the regulatory genes.”

     Two points: 1) as I mensioned to Frank we are only beginning to understand how this information is passed from generation to generation and 2) the regulatory sequence they are serching for has been pre-concieved to fit the evolutionary model. In other words, the regulatory sequence discovered by these evolutionists will be force fit to evolutionary ideology by ad hoc explanations. Again, I am o.k. with this for anyone who accepts the premise that all things can be explained by natural processes. As for a scientist, why would he/she not find the sequence and then determine if it fits the ideology? As far as “junk” DNA is concerned, one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. Perhaps it is not junk.

     -Mel

132. 

     fzindler

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 9:03pm:

     ---

     MatureKid argues that “As for Frank Zindler’s claim on the dolphin, this is overstating the evidence to fit a particular argument. “The same issue published a brief notice of the capture of a dolphin with the remnants of hind legs — … do just fine without?)” Here is the link w/ photos of the dolphin in question: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/?GT1=8717 As the pictures show, there are no hind legs, no hind feet, just an extra set of fins or flippers. There could be a 4 finned dolphin species or it could be a freak genetic mutation like a child with three arms…”

     It is a bit worrisome that anyone would think that something released on MSNBC would trump even a news article in the journal SCIENCE, but it is nevertheless worthwhile to look into this claim.

     Please note first of all that I spoke of “a dolphin with the REMNANTS of hind legs”; that is exactly what the fin-like hind-limbs are. The flippers normally found in dolphins and other whales are the REMNANTS of the fore-limbs of land-living ancestors. MatureKid claims that “There could be a 4 finned dolphin species.” True enough, but there isn’t — and hasn’t been for many millions of years. As for what it is, I would guess it is a bottlenose dolphin, but my opinion is unimportant since the researchers can do a DNA fingerprinting to see exactly what species it is in case there is any doubt (which I doubt there is).

     MatureKid says further that “it could be a freak genetic mutation like a child with three arms…” This is partly true, but there is a very important distinction that must be made. In the case of three-armed human monsters, the genes involved in producing the abnormal third arm are the same as the genes involved in producing the normal two. That is to say, the genes are normally needed to produce a normally functioning child. In the case of the dolphin with remnants of hind limbs, the gene set involved in producing the vestigial hind limbs and the activating program regulating them are not the same as the genes and program producing the forelimbs. The gene set is not necessary, as almost all mature dolphins get along fine without hind appendages. So our “Intelligent Designer” has fitted out this dolphin (and, as it turns out, ALL dolphins) with unnecessary genes. From an engineering point of view, this is not good design. This is not intelligent design. Since the note in SCIENCE is very short, I will type it in for the record:

     “Fishy Missing Link?

     “The capture last month of a dolphin with a pair of rarely seen hind fins has electrified marine mammal researchers worldwide. ‘This gives us a peek at what these animals might have looked like tens of millions of years ago,’ says Seiji Ohsumi, a marine mammal specialist at the Tokyo-based Institute for Cetacean Research. The find, netted by Japanese dolphin hunters, may bolster theories that marine mammals returned to the sea after adapting to life on land.

     “Hans Thewissen, a cetacean evolution expert at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine in Rootstown, [FZ note: Thewissen has been involved in analysis of most of the exciting discoveries of connecting link whale-land mammal fossils in Pakistan and elsewhere] says that such limbs are rare and have previously been sighted only on dead animals: ‘It’s a monster in some respects, but it is exciting as we’ve all thought the genetic programming [for such limbs] is there but switched off.’ Dolphin embryos have hind limbs that ordinarily disappear before birth. He says the living specimen provides unique opportunities for experiments that might help clarify evolutionary processes.

     “Ohsumi is collaborating with the Taiji Whale Museum in Japan on further research with the animal, which is currently in a netted enclosure in Taiji Bay, about 400 kilometers west of Tokyo.”

     It is worth noting that embryonic dolphins have hind-limb remnants, once again showing that in certain cases embryonic development may repeat evolutionary stages of animals. The embryonic vesigial hind-limbs are understandable if evolution is true: as whales became more and more adapted to life completely in water, not only did they have less and less use for hind limbs (and the genes controlling their production would tend to deteriorate once natural selection was no longer maintaining them), at some point the hind limbs became a liability, interfering with the streamlining necessary for maximally efficient swimming. At this point, natural selection would actually work to eliminate whales that still had hind limbs in favor of the more streamlined whales that lacked them. Hind limbs in dolphin embryos, however, are completely violative of the notion that dolphins are divinely designed.

     As the great geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky always loved to say, “Nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution.” By the same token, hardly anything in biology makes sense if all species were specially created a few thousand years ago.

     For reason,

     Frank Zindler

133. 

     fzindler

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 9:46pm:

     ---

     In my discussion of DNA similarities between humans and other species, I forgot to mention the most important point with respect to the people taking part in this blog: the fact that genome sequences and even partial DNA sequences represent a triumph of philosophical materialism. Let me explain.

     Philosophical materialism holds that humans and all other living things are systems of matter and energy — period. There is no “ghost in the machine,” no “vital force,” just chemical reaction systems. It is clear, comparing the human genome with that of chimps, gorillas, rhesus monkeys, and even fruit flies, that all of our wonderful differences in structure, function, and behavior, are ultimately the result of the purely chemical differences in the “spelling” of the genetic recipes that encode us. It is now possible to reconstruct the genome sequences of our common ancestors, and it is only ethical limitations, not scientific limitations, that prevent us from synthesizing ancestral genomes and producing living specimens of our ancestors.

     Humankind, as “a little lower than the angels,” makes no sense at all in light of the materialistic facts of the genomic sequences. Humankind as “risen apes,” however, is completely sensible and now — at least in principle — could be demonstrated experimentally. Already, within the last few months, geneticists have reconstructed and synthesized individual ancestral genes of a variety of organisms, have implanted them in living test systems, and have shown that they work as expected. Evolutionary biology is now as experimental as any other branch of biology.

     To repeat: it is only a small number of differences in “spelling” of chemicals — DNA — that makes chimps chimps and humans humans. As the spellings are altered, the organisms are altered accordingly. The difference between a man, a mouse, and a moss — ultimately — is the materialistic difference in the way their DNAs are spelled out in the four-letter code of A, T, C, and G. Somewhere in that marvelous chemical library is the recipe for making an animal that can love, hate, dream, aspire, conspire, philosophize, and theologize.

     Nowhere can one detect a soul or spirit. Nowhere can one detect an intelligent designer. Nowhere can one detect any evidence of a god. Gods only “exist” in the chemical clouds that swirl in brains of organisms baked according to the recipes recorded in their DNA. This is truly an awe-inspiring fact. It is the sort of thing that makes us scientists keep trying to expand the bounds of knowledge. Experiencing this awareness is one of the many things that make life worth living.

     For reason,

     Frank Zindler

134. 

     fzindler

     Said this on November 29th, 2006 at 11:03pm:

     ---

     I had planned to call it a day and go to bed after a very long day of work. However, after posting my previous note I realized I had not complimented “Mel” for his honesty and willingness to admit his error concerning cytochrome c. I would hope that all of us — myself included — will follow Mel’s example from here on.

     Mel refers to the famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper. It is true that at one stage of his career, Popper claimed that evolution (actually, as I recall it, the theory of natural selection) was unfalsifiable — that is, there was in principle no way experimentally or observationally to disprove it. After being shown numerous ways in which natural selection or evolution could in fact become falsifiable, Popper not only recanted publicly, he ultimately grounded his entire theory of knowledge on the principle of natural selection!

     Just two ways in which evolution could in principle be falsified:

     (1) If the oldest fossiliferous sedimentary rocks on earth (say, the late Precambrian Belt Group of strata exposed in Glacier National Park, where the only fossils to be found now are algal stromatolytes) contained ALL the major modern groups of plants and animals, as well as ALL the major groups of plants and animals known from the fossil record all together “at the start,” and then progressively as one went up the geological column all modern species continued to be present in the rocks but gradually more and more fossil species disappeared. The lack of change of modern forms through time “from the beginning” would falsify evolutionary theory while at the same time fulfilling a major prediction of creationism, viz., that ALL species were specially created at the beginning and have remained unchanged ever after. Observing all known types of plants and animals fossilized in the oldest sedimentary rocks would falsify the theory of evolution.

     (2) If the evidence from comparative genomics and comparative biochemistry were completely at odds with the evidence from comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and the fossil record, evolution would be falsified. If, for instance, the chimp used completely different enzymes in its Krebs cycle (the citric acid cycle, used to produce energy in the mitochondria of the cell) than those used by humans, it would show that chimps and humans are unrelated — exactly as the hypothesis of special creation predicts. Keep in mind, there is nothing inherently impossible about using different enzymes to do the various jobs of the Krebs cycle. I have just read two interesting papers on the evolution of the Krebs cycle that show that in various bacteria and archaea, one species may use an enzyme completely different (according to the DNA sequence encoding it) from the enzyme used to do the same chemical job in some other species. Thus, an Intelligent Designer could have sent us a clear signal by outfitting chimps with completely different enzymes to work the Krebs cycle than those s/he/it put in humans. But in fact, that is not the case. The enzymes are virtually identical.

     I am sorry I have been so long-winded, but Mel and others have raised some interesting questions.

     For reason,

     Frank Zindler

135. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on November 30th, 2006 at 3:41am:

     ---

     In case anyone here doesn’t know who Frank Zindler (ie. fzindler) I looked him up.

     Frank R Zindler: Former professor of biology, geology; science writer; editor, American Atheists Magazine

     He has several debates against well known creationists posted at
     http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/index.shtml

     If your curious as to what he believes try his article on Godless America Marches on Washington. http://www.americanatheist.org/supplement/frankzindlergamow.html

     “The government of the United States of America kneels in thrall to religion. Priests and preachers have triumphed over the Constitution of our country.
     The wall of separation between state and church has not only been mined, sapped, and breached by the forces of superstition, the parts of it that remain appear to be about to be incorporated into the walls of a church — a state church.
     With the victory of faith-based forces, science and learning — the age-old victims of religion — now face a danger such as they have not seen since the time of the Holy Roman Inquisition.
     The threat to science posed by religion is a peril to us all, for it is science that has been our great benefactor, liberator, and secular savior. It is science that has buoyed us up over the dark and swelling tide of superstition, faith, and ignorance, and has carried us to within sight of a world more beautiful by far than any paradise conjured in the ancient dreams of primitive priests.
     It is not only our liberty for which we must fear if religion consummates its conquest of the Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Our very lives and those of our descendants are in jeopardy.
     Given the grave environmental dangers confronting a species that has soiled its nest — a species that has multiplied beyond the carrying capacity of the spaceship it calls Earth — facts, facts, and more facts relating to the problem must be discovered, evaluated, and used to find solutions that will allow the survival of Homo sapiens………………

     We godless Americans are the ones who have to do it. We must act, and we must act forcefully and decisively.
     We must expose the fallacies of religious thought both inside and outside of government.
     We must prevent the relapse of our society into the Dark Ages.
     We must set government once again upon the road of reason, the road of reality.
     We must rebuild the wall of separation.
     We must restore a semblance of sanity to government.
     We must educate our representatives and our endangered nation.
     We must not fail.
     We dare not fail.”

     Anyone interested in the human footprints at the Paluxy River site might try the articles and videos at http://www.bible.ca

     http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-mcfall-4-both-java.htm

     If anyone is concerned about Mr. Zindler’s attacks on the bible, I believe his book “The Real Bible, Who’s Got It?” Is thoroughly refuted at http://www.tektonics.org/uz/zindler02.html

     For more information, you might try
     http://www.biblebelievers.com/

     Looking at the history of the past few centuries, in a few years Mr. Zindler’s life work will be forgotten and discredited while people (even educated and knowledgeable ones) still read and believe the bible.

     PSALM 2:

     Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

     The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

     Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

     He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

136. 

     Michael Deas

     Said this on November 30th, 2006 at 8:19am:

     ---

     Thats right guys. The more words you use, the stronger your case. Bless your little pea pickin heart.

     As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets.
     Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.
     But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah.

137. 

     bioteacher

     Said this on November 30th, 2006 at 8:48am:

     ---

     I don’t think this posted the first time I tried.

     Well stated Maturekid!! Great line here – “An extra set of flippers on 1 dolphin doesn’t prove anything except 1 dolphin had an extra set of flippers.” Haha, that is the kind of logic that many of today’s scientists seem to be lacking. They are vainly searching for something, anything to support the evolutionary theory. Then when something comes up they display it as conclusive evidence when all it may be is a random mutation (most often deleterious not beneficial).

     Fzindler – the beginning of your post on the Pauloxy River tracks was well stated. I would argue that if indeed the tracks were human, that it would be in-line with the evolutionist community to present the story of the tracks being dinosaur tracks of some variety. I don’t know for certain, but this is one area that I don’t readily buy into one way or the other, hence I decided to completely bypass discussing them.

     In this post I will be addressing the issues involved in radiometric dating.

     Each dating method can only have accuracy IF certain assumptions ALWAYS apply to EACH specimen that is tested. The following are a list of the some of the assumptions made in radiometric dating:
     1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process. However, as most of you probably know, there is no such thing as a closed system.
     2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. Unfortunately this can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
     3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Again, there is no way of confirming this. It very well may be true, but we don’t know for certain. Rates are statistical averages not deterministic constants. It is a known fact among scientists that decay rates can and do change. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered (1) if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (ie. Neutrinos); (2) if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; (3) if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or (4) if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.
     4) If any change occurred in the past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.
     5) Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time (half-life) of radioactive minerals. The Van Allen belt is a belt of radiation that circles Earth (450 miles above the surface) and emits three to four thousand times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that hit the Earth’s surface.

     There are roughly 20 methods of dating that are used today. I will list them for any who are interested and if you have questions regarding any of them please email me at bioteacherJN@gmail.com. Because of the focus on radiocarbon dating I will focus on that with some passing comments on others. The following are the dating methods: Uranium-lead, Thorium-lead, Lead 210, Helium, Rubidium-strontium, Potassium-argon, Potassium-calcium, Strata and fossil, Radiocarbon, Amino acid decomposition, Racemization, Astronomical, Paleomagnetic, Varve, Tree ring, Buried forest strata, Peat, Reef, Thermolumiescence, Stalactite.

     Radiocarbon – the following are the assumptions of radiocarbon dating.
     1) Atmospheric carbon – this must have remained constant for the past millions of years.
     2) Oceanic carbon – the very large amount of carbon in the oceans cannot have change
     3) Cosmic rays – the amount of cosmic rays hitting Earth’s surface has not changed.
     4) Balance of rates – the rates of formation and decay of C-14 have always been in balance
     5) Decay rates – have never changed
     6) No contamination – Nothing has ever contaminated a specimen (see point 2 above)
     7) No seepage – the introduction of new C-14 post-mortem cannot have occurred (ie. Water seepage) Amount of C-14 at death – the amount of C-14 in the original sample at the time of death must be known.
     9) C-14 half life – this must be accurately determined
     10) Atmospheric nitrogen – as a precursor to C-14 this must have always been at the same level as today.
     11) Instrumentation and analysis – Equipment must be precise, functional, and without experimental errors.
     12) Uniform results – The technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.
     13) Earth’s magnetic field – must have been the same in the past as today.

     I won’t belabor you with expounding upon each of the afore mentioned points, I’m sure you are capable of reasoning on your own that C-14 dating is unreliable.

     Uranium dating- This process is where uranium and thorium degrade to lead. This has many problems facing it as well.
     1) Lead could originally have been integral or adjacent to the sample. However, it is assumed that the amount of lead present is entirely daughter products.
     2) Leaching occurs readily in nature. This is seen when a weak acid solution comes in contact with the sample and some of the lead, in this case, is lost.
     3) The different types of lead found in a sample must also be considered when dating.
     4) Neutron capture is also problematic in Uranium dating. This problem forms when lead 207 (the daughter product) is form from lead 206 simply by the capture of neutrons from neighboring substances rather than from thorium 232 decay.
     5) It is also well known by nuclear researchers that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings. This is complicated by the fact that all rocks (according to the evolutionary theory) were formed under intense heat or are still subject to intense heat (in the form of pressure).

     Helium dating is equally invalid due to the incredibly high leakage rate of helium.

     Rubidium-strontium – Rubidium 87 gradually decays into strontium 87.
     1) Experts have yet been unable to agree upon the length of rubidum half-life. This renders it useless for dating purposes.
     2) Strontium is also subject to high levels of leaching. This shows that much of the strontium present is likely non-radiogenic and may not even be sourced in the sample.

     Questions about any of this? Or about another dating method? Email me at bioteacherjn@gmail.com or post it.
     Thanks
     -JN

138. 

     mfox

     Said this on November 30th, 2006 at 8:55am:

     ---

     Roborat,

     Please pardon my delay. Your objection as to the age of the universe is of foundational importance to the debate. Let me try to clarify my scientific perspective on time.

     Any human attempt to hang an absolute age on the universe is preposterous. Scientific grounds for any such claim are inherently biased and at best arbitrary. This is so because time has been shown to be not absolute but rather relative. It is relative to at least two variables; speed and gravity (time dilation). The closer to the speed of light one travels the less time elapses, likewise, the stronger the field of gravity the less time that elapses. These are both verified experimentally. Is it not obvious no absolute time can be assigned?

     Let’s suppose, just for fun, that the Big Bang Theory is accurate. By the very predictions of the theory, speeds approach the speed of light as we get closer and closer to the bang. Also predicted by the theory, gravitational field strengths approach infinity as we get closer and closer to the bang, as individual models very so would ages of the universe. These predicted ages would be as if you actually lived through the formation of the universe. There are models consistent with Big Bang Theory which predict formation ages as short as days; this would be days experienced by someone who was actually present during the formation of the universe, Jesus for example. You may claim this to be science fiction but remember, it is your theory.

     It is also germane to note that Biblical descriptions of the formation of the universe are consistent with the phenomenon of time dilation.

     As for dinosaurs, I expect this will come up in the discussion of the flood.

     -Mel

139. 

     Jason

     Said this on November 30th, 2006 at 7:09pm:

     ---

     Christian Evangelist Imprisoned for Paying his workers a full wage.

     Friday November 3, 2006, Dr Kent Hovind, Christian evangelist, was imprisoned facing a maximum of 288 years in prison.

     The crime according to the IRS was that he should not only pay a proportion of any wage he might receive of his own labors to the IRS, but that he should have also deducted a proportion of the wages of his staff’s labors before they received them and give this also to the IRS.

     As always, when asked to show the law that has imprisoned this worker for the Lord, the IRS declined to answer, but rather pointed out that Dr Hovind’s conviction was evidence enough that a law must exist. Furthering this point they acknowledged the unwillingness of most politicians to challenge them on this subject.

     This show trial staged by the IRS is just one of many convictions of prominent people designed to remind the less famous to bow down to their demands without question.

     American people are now required to forget that the catalyst for early Americans’ fighting the War for Independence was tax resistance. History revised now shows that America is not a nation because of Tax Protesters; Americans just don’t drink Tea that’s all…

     American People…

     Don’t look at History, as this well known saying states…
     “One thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history”
     So therefore what’s the point????

     Enough sarcasm now, I am English. I view your nation America over the Internet & TV, but I’ve never been there. I will say this though; your founding fathers & ancestors did a good thing for you by kicking us Brits out. You lived without Income Tax for years in a country founded upon the word of God, life was hard but you were free & men like Dr. Kent Hovind were respected.

     Ask yourself this question, how many child molesters are allowed to safely walk the streets of your nation while Dr. Kent Hovind is in prison paying his debt to your phony Tax Laws care of your IRS, which you allow to continue by not talking about it?

     Make a noise, talk about Dr. Hovind’s phony conviction, a man like your founding fathers.

     Watch the video by Aaron Russo Freedom2Fascism for free on Google Video.

     http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism

     send the link to others, regain your independence, and reset the good example to the world that you once presented.

     A concerned brother in the battle against Satan.
     (& yes I know that Jesus has already won the war)

     Jason xXx

     hmmmm was all that a bit strong????

140. 

     AHayes

     Said this on November 30th, 2006 at 8:31pm:

     ---

     I’m pleased to know there is a way to petition Governor Bush about possibly releasing Hovind until his sentencing. Regardless of if he is guilty or not, the fact that he is considered a “flight risk” is absurd. If he did indeed break the law, (some of his charges seem rather dubious), then as citizens we need to be working to help change the tax law, which has become burdensome and almost impossible to understand. Thank goodness for people who are involved in the constitution and libertairan parties in this regard. I don’t claim to be a scientist or nearly as knowledgeable as some of the people on this blog, but the absolute vitrol that is poured upon Creationists is astounding, some of it from other Creationists! What this demonstrates to me is the importance of this topic, and how the concept of God so offends some people, they will go to any lengths to deny he exists, because the idea of an external moral compass is offensive. Christians should not be suprised, because the gospel itself is “inherently offensive.”

141. 

     turtlejs

     Said this on December 1st, 2006 at 1:30am:

     ---

     RE: Laetrile and alternative cancer therapies

     Just in case the above links don’t work, here are a few more:

     http://www.curezone.com
     http://www.1cure4cancer.com
     http://www.vitaminb17.org (There is an audio download of the World Without Cancer video on this website.)
     http://www.cancercure.org/laetrile
     http://www.drday.com (A physician who used natural methods to cure her own breast cancer!)
     http://www.hacres.com (George Malkmus’ testimony – also healed his own cancer through nutrition)

     Please look into these and the books mentioned above! The case histories are inspirational.

     P.S. I am not a medical doctor (just a Nutritional Herbologist) and this is intended for informational use only. I am not prescribing any medical treatment or advice. If you choose to prescribe for yourself, which is your constitutional right, you are solely responsible for your own actions. I assume no responsibility for what is written here as it is only intended for informational purposes.

     The above statement was made (not because I wanted to, but because I had to by law) because of the lack of free speech (and medical freedom) in America. Anyone who authors a book or writes any kind of alternative health information is required to post a statement similar to that one.

142. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 1st, 2006 at 8:48am:

     ---

     Frank,

     Suppose a man has sex with a sheep. Note that this is a clear abomination to the Lord but I believe it has actually happened more than a few times, just recall Genesis 6: 5:

     “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

     Now that is the heart of Frank, Melvin, Moses, bioteacher, and Kent, just to name a few, each with their own particular flavor for sin.

     Back to the man-with-sheep sex scandal, what happens? Do we get a little man-sheep running around? No. We get nothing but separation from God and His will. The reason we get nothing is because the process is designed to give us nothing so that things will remain as they were created. Random uncontrolled change is ruled out from the moment of creation. What awful evolution would ensue if fruit was wrought from this activity?

     Stick to your own kind is the instruction from God. Some would say that this means black people should not marry white people. This does not make Biblical sense to me. If two can mate and the fruit of their action is viable, then they are of the same kind. A horse and a donkey are not of the same kind, unless of course you can show me a mule that is not a dead end.

     There are, without question, variations within kinds. This is also by design. This variation is carefully controlled as the plan for our physical being is meticulously written in our specific DNA composition created during meiosis and set in motion at fertilization/conception. You probably would claim that the process of crossing over which takes place just prior to the first meiotic division is a random shuffling. You may also be so bold as to say that the distribution of traits to individuals is ruled by the “laws” of probability. Let me remind you that probability theory is used in very specific situations. In each of these situations we concede a lack of understand, ignorance of, the actual processes that are at play. It would be a supernatural intervention by the great god of chance for randomness to play any role in any physical process. Chance can’t cause anything. Chance can’t do anything. The large stone god Dagon had more potential than chance, for if someone pushed it over it could crush you.

     Perhaps we agree on one point? While superficially humans and chimps are strikingly similar, intrinsically they are excludingly different. The chimps have two many pairs of chromosomes. This subject might bring to the mind of the materialist; “Hey, lets find out.” It was actually attempted in Russia I believe and you guessed it, nothing happened except separation from God and His will. Why would they even think of doing such a thing? Don’t they have any morals? Well, they believe they have no morels. You see they can’t find morals under a microscope in the same way they can’t see God under a microscope. And since they can’t find them there, they do not exist. Or would you like to show me the moral gene? And perhaps the murderer lacks the “spelling” of the moral gene. How can we fault him for his behavior? Let him be. He is only acting in the beautifully randomly determined way his chemical makeup dictates he should by all the physical laws that control him. He has done nothing “wrong”.

     -Mel

143. 

     Millerfamily6

     Said this on December 1st, 2006 at 11:04am:

     ---

     To All Christian Hovind Supporters here:

     I am wanting to write a letter to Gov. Bush and To the Court, as Mr. Hovind suggested, but I am at a loss as to what to write other than what I know of his character. I want to include some historical evidence regarding tax protestation and Constitutional evidence which would support Mr. H. that has been mentioned on this blog, but sad to say, I’m somewhat ignorant of how to present this type information in a thoughtful, well defined manner. Are there any bloggers on here that can assist those of us who are wanting to write but don’t know exactly what to say that will benefit Mr. Hovind in a more profound way than what I might be able to do on my own? I truly want to do something that will help!!

     Thank you, Jason, for that post from a non-American and AHayes, I applaud you for going with the Constitution Party. I voted for the constitutional candidate for President in the last election (can’t remember his name at the moment). I believe the Constitutional Party is the way to go and wish more Americans were aware of it. I tried to inform those within my reach about the “alternative” but most wanted to go with the “lesser of two evils” and voted for Bush, and some were just strong Bush supporters and no amount of warning about him was going to change their minds.

     Sincerely,
     Michele Miller

144. 

     cstministries

     Said this on December 1st, 2006 at 2:44pm:

     ---

     It’s interesting how many people (including Christians) are denouncing Dr. Hovind for not paying taxes. The fact is, we have all been brainwashed by Washington and the IRS into willfully giving our money to a system that is actually “voluntary” and was instituted “temporarily” to fund the Civil War. Can’t exactly remember the percentage at that point..something like 2 or 3%? Now we’re all being robbed blind by a bunch of power hungry idiots in Washington and most of us don’t have the backbone to take a stand as Dr. Hovind has. Even at the rate they steal from us, they still can’t operate on a budget and choose instead to steal from our children who will inherit the debt as well. If that’s not enough FDR institutes Social Security which actually would have worked indefinately if they could have kept their grubby hands off of it. So they steal that too and now all the funding is gone and the money we’re being FORCED to put in is either being paid out to the recipients or continues to be stolen by politicians.

     Oh wait…there’s more. Stealing our income and socual security and robbing our children through increased national debt still isn’t enough. The Democrooks can’t wait to raise taxes even more. This country is a train wreck in progress. So those of you critical of Dr. Hovind, go ahead and pay your taxes and drink your $5 lattes while reading Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth about how humans can manage to casue global warming which will destroy the world but we can’t seem to we can’t seem to whip a bunch of camel jockies in Iraq and while Muslims are coming across the Mexican boarder to cut your throat.

     While I’m on a rant, let’s address the evolutionists. Evolution is stupid. That’s obvious. What is more stupid is that these idiots spend tens of thousands of dollars on what they actually call an education in which other idiots tell them what other idiots told them and to learn some 7 and 8 syllable words so they can convince others they’re not idiots and some day tell others what former idiots told them so they can make new idiots to teach make more idiots.

     Here’s an exercise for you idiots. Leave your graphing calculatiors, electron microscopes and particle accelerators alone… this one’s easy. Draw a verticle line on a piece of paper. Then from the top of that line draw two lines branching out. Then at the end of those lines draw more branching out. DO this several times. This will represent the so called tree of life you idiots use to begin brainwashing our children in elementary school so they’ll believe the idiots in high school and college. Now you know what to do… fill in the species from the bottom part of the tree to the top parts as you think they evolved. Ok now between each species along the “limbs” you have a space representing time during which the species on the bottom end of each particular branch evolved into the next species at the top end of each cooresponding branch. Along these time branches draw a bunch of Xs. These represent the so calld intermediate species. No keep drawing those Xs. You need millions of them in the tree to represnet all the intermediate forms. Were the earth billions of years old and were evolution true, you would end up with billions upon billions of times more intermediate species than identified species on the tree. We can assume at some point each individual intermediate organism died. So realistically if evolution were true, we wouldn’t have to search endlessly for missing links. They would be so prominant we would ALL literally be tripping over them! My little boy should be able to go out into the yard and collect a few hundred intermediate extint fossils in a bucket.

     Now that’s just one of many of observations that make evolution impossible. Now don’t be shy idiots. I expect several of you to reply spouting some of those 8 syllable words your mentor idiots taught you and quote something out of a journal on evolution that must be true because it was peer reviewed by other idiots.

     Hey wait…did you ever think that maybe some of your mentor idiots aren’t realy idiots after all? The fact is there are thousands of fully credentialed scientists (one or more doctorates) from every area of science believe in a young earth creation because of the evidence. Here’s the link to around 200 of them: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/. Need some more names as well as research information and articles? Check out http://www.icr.org.

     I wonder how many there are out there who woke up to reality but couldn’t admit it because the jobs they would lose at universities all over the world. Makes you wonder now when you read a comparative anatomy article in the Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology if the author knows he is writing a bunch of crap but has to in order to be published and keep his cushy 6 fingure job at Stanford or UC Berserekley (intentionially misspelled for accurate characterization). In fact Stephen Gould all but denounced evolution several times before he died. Don’t ya know he’s kicking himself in the rear now!

     In conclusion looks like Dr. Hovind is one of the few who got it right.

145. 

     bembeneck

     Said this on December 2nd, 2006 at 2:00pm:

     ---

     Dear Michelle:

     I would encourage you to review the court documents regarding past events with Kent Hovind. I was able to go to the public library and use a database called West Law and read the court documents. I wasn’t able to view the trial that recently happened. The one document I viewed was from July, 2006. I believe if you want your comments to hold weight it is beneficial to be knowledgeable about what actually took place.

     Beth Bembeneck

146. 

     mustardseed

     Said this on December 3rd, 2006 at 3:45pm:

     ---

     How can you compare yourself with Paul when he was in prison just for his faith, while you are there because you actually did something wrong? Doesn’t matter if it’s not a “big” sin, or if you have been a really nice person over all. It’s a difference. Just admit it publicly, and God will forgive anyway. And find a way out.

147. 

     mustardseed

     Said this on December 3rd, 2006 at 3:46pm:

     ---

     my post gets checked first?

148. 

     CMarychurch

     Said this on December 4th, 2006 at 1:08am:

     ---

     I thought I would comment on these claims made by “bioteacher” to illustrate how even knowledgable people can be hoodwinked by claims outside their area of expertise. Please note that I have no professional expertise in these areas however I have investigated these subjects as part of a long term project of investigating the claims of Kent Hovind (www.kent-hovind.com)

     ———————
     1) Atmospheric carbon – this must have remained constant for the past millions of years.
     2) Oceanic carbon – the very large amount of carbon in the oceans cannot have change
     3) Cosmic rays – the amount of cosmic rays hitting Earth’s surface has not changed.
     4) Balance of rates – the rates of formation and decay of C-14 have always been in balance
     10) Atmospheric nitrogen – as a precursor to C-14 this must have always been at the same level as today.
     13) Earth’s magnetic field – must have been the same in the past as today.

     CM- First error: carbon dating is only used for less than 50,000 years

     Second error: there is NO assumption that the rate of formation or the quantity of atmospheric C14, N, sun activity or magnetic fields are constant. Carbon dating is calibrated with numerous other sources (tree rings, ice cores, varves, etc) to form a calibration curve of C14 levels over the last 20,000 years or so. The amount of fluctuation is quite low however in persuit of accuracy even these variations (about 10% from memory) are taken into account. It is truely astounding that Young Earth evangelists make such blatantly false statements which only require five minutes of Google time to expose.

     At any point in time C14 levels can be above, below or at equilibrium and it has zero affect on C14 dating.

     —————
     5) Decay rates – have never changed
     9) C-14 half life – this must be accurately determined

     CM- If we can’t trust nuclear physics then science is really messed up.

     ——–
     6) No contamination – Nothing has ever contaminated a specimen (see point 2 above)
     7) No seepage – the introduction of new C-14 post-mortem cannot have occurred (ie. Water seepage)

     CM- Contamination is a valid concern, however, it then goes to the level of absurdity to suggest that results greater than 6,000 years are due to contamination. Seepage is nonsense. There is no process which selectively removes C14.

     ————- Amount of C-14 at death – the amount of C-14 in the original sample at the time of death must be known.

     CM- Carbon dating is best used on plant materials and direct consumers of those plants. It is interesting to note that some Young Earth evangelists (such as Hovind) have tried to claim dates derived from samples which don’t gain all their carbon from atmospheric sources disproves carbon dating. Is that an honest argument to make?

     ——-
     11) Instrumentation and analysis – Equipment must be precise, functional, and without experimental errors.
     12) Uniform results – The technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.

     CM- Well, these a no brainers.

     In conclusion, it is important to correct the claims propagated by Kent Hovind (and others) onto well meaning but unsuspecting people under the colour of defending religion from a secular world. As shown above, much of what Kent Hovind claims is blatantly wrong.

149. 

     CMarychurch

     Said this on December 4th, 2006 at 1:32am:

     ---

     CSTMINISTRIES…

     “The fact is there are thousands of fully credentialed scientists (one or more doctorates) from every area of science believe in a young earth creation because of the evidence. Here’s the link to around 200 of them: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/. Need some more names as well as research information and articles? Check out http://www.icr.org.

     I wonder how many there are out there who woke up to reality but couldn’t admit it because the jobs they would lose at universities all over the world. Makes you wonder now when you read a comparative anatomy article in the Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology if the author knows he is writing a bunch of crap but has to in order to be published and keep his cushy 6 fingure job at Stanford or UC Berserekley (intentionially misspelled for accurate characterization).”

     Are you aware that is a contradictory argument? So which is it, thousands of scientists openly support “a young earth creation because of the evidence” or there is conspiracy forcing scientists to knowingly make false claims? Since many professors have tenure they have little risk of loosing their job for expressing a controversial opinion.

     Are you aware that Ken Ham (head of Answers in Genesis) has a $200,000+ salary which is twice that of the average college professor? Does that mean he is twice as biased?

150. 

     cstministries

     Said this on December 4th, 2006 at 12:09pm:

     ---

     Oh that’s great Mary! No, not an argument, just an observation and we both know it’s true. And not contadictory from my side…hypocritical from yours. That’s the problem with you guys in a discussion. We’re honest. You lie when we know you’re lying, and you know you’re lying, and we know that you know you’re lying, so an honest discussion with you is impossible. I would rather discuss tax code with the big rock in my back yard from which you think I came 4.6 billion years ago. The rock is much more impressive…and honest.

151. 

     CMarychurch

     Said this on December 4th, 2006 at 6:06pm:

     ---

     “You lie when we know you’re lying, and you know you’re lying, and we know that you know you’re lying, so an honest discussion with you is impossible.”

     Care to substantiate that allegation? An apology is optional.

     (My name is not Mary)

152. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 4th, 2006 at 7:29pm:

     ---

     CMarychurch,

     Let me cut right to the chase. Here is the biggest problem with C-14 dating as communicated to us in “Chemical Principles” (Masterton, Slowinski, Stanitski 6th edition; page 811).

     “This method has been applied to date a wide variety of organic objects. It depends upon an assumption that cannot be proved. For carbon-14 dating to be valid, the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere must have remained constant over centuries. Ages estimated by this method agree within +/-10% with historical records, suggesting that the assumption is valid.”

     The Chauvet Caves in France are reported to be some 30,000 years old by carbon-14 dating. Let’s have a thought experiment and use for this investigation the first-order reaction equation:

     log(Xo/X) = kt/2.30

     where Xo is the amount of radioactive substance at zero time, X is the amount remaining after time t, k is the first-order rate constant and t is the time in years. We accept k = 1.21×10^-4 (Masterton et. all page 809). Suppose we find a bit of bone or whatever morsel you prefer that was at one time in the past living organic matter. We perform the necessary laboratory procedures and determine that X = 2.64% of Xo. Oh yea, we are assuming that the amount of 14C at the time of death (Xd) is equal to Xo the amount of 14C if the beast would have died just now or Xd = 100% of Xo. Whoa, look at that;

     t = 2.3•log(Xd/X)/k

     t = 2.3•log(1/0.0264)/(1.21×10^-4)

     t = 30,000

     the bit of bone is 30,000 years old, given our assumption. But what if, long ago when this creature died, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere was not as high? Let’s assume that Xd = 10% of Xo. We find the same bit of bone and in the same lab we determine X = 2.64% of Xo. Here we recalculate the age using the same formula and hummm;

     t = 2.3•log(Xd/X)/k

     t = 2.3•log(0.1/0.0264)/(1.21×10^-4)

     t = 11,000 years

     the bit of bone is 11,000 years old? Now, I don’t want to jump to any conclusions but here we have three professional chemists who say that the dating depends on the ratio. Are they wrong? Maybe all three of them are evangelical Christian chemists; praise God. Are there any chemists who say it does not depend on the ratio? I could not find any. Know that an even younger age could be calculated given a different assumed ratio. As far as the +/-10% error compared with historical records, I am comfortable with using the technique to date things approximately for say the past 4,000 to 6,000 years.

     -Mel

153. 

     fzindler

     Said this on December 4th, 2006 at 9:45pm:

     ---

     I am sorry to be so tardy in replying to all the questions posed, but uncustomarily I have been involved in two other discussion groups and I am trying to finish the final edits on several books needing to go to the printer. Even now, I can only address a few issues and will try to get to the others as time allows.

     First of all, I wish to thank ‘CreationCD’ for posting part of my speech at the Godless Americans’ March On Washington (GAMOW). It would have been immodest of me to presume to post it myself, even though I think it was one of the most important speeches I have ever given.

     Secondly, I wish to thank him for drawing attention to my little article “The REAL Bible: Who’s Got It?” which can be accessed at http://www.atheists.org. The article is important in that it shows that Bible-believers are dependent upon the decisions of scientific scholars for their reconstruction (creation, actually) of the Greek and Hebrew texts used as translation bases for creating bibles in the vernacular languages. (It also documents the fact that the decisions concerning which ‘books’ should be in THE Bible and which of the many contradictory manuscripts of each book should be followed are based entirely on theopolitical factors.) It is important that people read the article itself as well as the many attempted refutations that can be found on the Web.

     I am disappointed that no one has tried to answer my hypothetical question concerning the ethics and theology of transferring human genes into chimpanzees. Because this is so crucial to Christian theology, I want to restate the problem before answering the best of the challenges posed to me.

     Assume for the sake of argument that genomic analysis ultimately shows there are exactly 100 genes and/or DNA control sequences that make up the genetic differences between humans and chimps. As I noted before, only ‘microevolutionary’ differences separate humans from chimps, and if genetic engineers replaced chimp genes with human genes one-at-a-time, at what point would you consider the product more human than chimp? Would just one human gene do it? How about 51 human genes? Or 99 human genes? When would it need to believe in Jesus to be saved? When would it need to be baptized? Does it make any sense to believe that humans have a soul, but organisms that are nearly 99% identical do not?

     Notice that this problem does not presuppose the validity of evolution, only depending upon the demonstrated ability of genetic engineers to transfer genes between species.

     The majority of bloggers on this site seem to think there is something faulty about the geologic column. While the accuracy of the geologic column can be enhanced somewhat by evolutionary theory, it does not depend upon it. As you probably all know, most of the geological column was created by creationist scientists working before Darwin’s 1859 ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES and Alfred Russel Wallace’s famous paper of about the same time. The geologic column is pieced together, first of all, by simply following the implications of the Law of Superposition: oldest rocks are on the bottom, youngest rocks are on the top.

     (Please don’t bring up the old chestnut of rock strata out of order and cite the Lewis Overthrust. I’ve been there and have collected ‘slickensides’ formed when the Precambrian limestone slid over the Cretaceous shale, moving roughly from west to east. I personally have observed the folding of Cretaceous strata to the east of the contact and can tell you for certain that Whitcomb and Morris’ description of the overthrust is not only incorrect but probably deceitful as well.)

     The geologic column’s validity is proven every day by geologists exploring for oil and other natural resources. The deep wells that now can be drilled show again and again that the column is valid and that the index fossil series again and again can be seen to be a reliable index of relative age. The fortunes of many millionaires have been made because of the geologic column!

     Note also, that the validity of the geologic column is not to any significant extent dependent upon the absolute ages of the strata included, only upon their relative ages. (Of course, if the earth is only six thousand years old, it is hard to understand how the entire column could have been formed during a one-year-long flood!)

     Again I must comment that there is no quick fix for formal training in field geology. I know of no creationists at all who are competent field geologists. Those who depend upon creationist amateurs for geological knowledge are doing themselves a great disservice if they do not check their claims against the practical facts of everyday economic geology.

     Let me now consider Mel’s comments about the Wikipedia note on the human genome, where he suggests there is circular reasoning going on.

     Despite Mel’s statement that he has studied some textbooks on molecular genetics and population genetics (which is altogether admirable), I fear that his steady diet of creationist literature has created a bias which makes it difficult to understand the professional scientific literature correctly. I think this is the problem in the case he brings up.

     The Wikipedia article he quoted notes the following (emphases mine):

     “Identification of regulatory sequences relies IN PART on evolutionary conservation. The evolutionary branch between the human and mouse, for example, occurred 70-90 million years ago. So computer comparisons of gene sequences that identify conserved non-coding sequences will be an indication of their importance in duties such as gene regulation. ANOTHER COMPARATIVE GENOMIC APPROACH TO LOCATING REGULATORY SEQUENCES IN HUMANS IS THE GENE SEQUENCING OF THE PUFFER FISH. These vertebrates have essentially the same genes and regulatory gene sequences as humans, but with only one-eight the ‘junk’ DNA. The compact DNA sequence of the puffer fish makes it much easier to locate the regulatory genes.”

     Mel comments that “2) the regulatory sequence they are serching [sic, the type of deletion typo I myself seem to make a lot!] for has been pre-concieved (sic) to fit the evolutionary model. In other words, the regulatory sequence discovered by these evolutionists will be force fit to evolutionary ideology by ad hoc explanations.”

     First of all, we must ask what it could possibly mean to “force fit” regulatory sequences to fit an evolutionary ideology. Either they prove to be regulatory sequences or they don’t. If laboratory experiments done on putative regulatory sequences show that they do in fact regulate, how does that invalidate the method? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. If evolutionary methods lead to accurate predictions, so much the better for evolutionary methods! Evolutionary theory has proven again and again to have enormous heuristic value. Creationist or ID claims, however, have no heuristic value that I have ever heard of.

     Let me try to explain the problem here more clearly.

     The genome is composed of DNA sequences (exons) that encode protein sequences and lots of DNA sequences that don’t — introns and so-called “junk DNA”. It has been known for a long time that a certain percentage of the “junk” isn’t junk at all. Rather, it contains DNA sequences that are involved in control of gene expression at several levels. It also is clear that most of the junk is, indeed, junk — including such things as pseudogenes, viral DNA, and apparently even some bacterial DNA sequences. (The last I checked, it appeared that one or two percent of the human genome isn’t even human!)

     How to know which sequences are important and which are simply junk?

     Before the sequencing of complete genomes, there was very little that could be done to answer this question. Once several other genomes had been sequenced and could be compared with that of the human genome, however, two ways became apparent in which to see what was regulatory (important) and what was junk.

     Way #1: the puffer fish genome.

     As the Wikipedia article notes, humans and puffer fish have essentially the same genes (i.e., protein-coding sequences) but the puffer fish contains only about one-eighth the amount of non-coding (“junk”) DNA. A reasonable way to understand this is that the puffer fish genome has very little truly junk DNA, and that most of the non-coding sequences are regulatory sequences. Seeing which of the puffer non-coding sequences have close homologs in the human genome can help to identify those parts of the human genome that aren’t junk at all.

     Way #2: evolutionarily conserved sequences.

     Sequences that have been conserved for varying amounts of time in different evolutionary lineages can give us an understanding of how important they are. By comparing these conserved sequences with the number of changes in completely unconserved sequences such as pseudogenes, we may draw conclusions about how fundamental they must be for gene regulation.

     Since pseudogenes no longer are maintained by natural selection, they are free to vary at a relatively high mutation rate. Regulatory genes, however, would be under the control of natural selection. If there is a selective advantage for them to change in a way that affects gene regulation in certain ways, they MAY undergo some change. However, random mutations that do not produce useful regulatory changes will be weeded out by natural selection. Keep in mind, natural selection can be both a force for change and for stability, depending upon the circumstances confronting a particular species at a particular time.

     How can we tell how long particular sequences have been conserved or not? Our method gives only approximate results, but it is nonetheless quite useful. It is only approximate because it depends upon pin-pointing the place in the fossil record where the lineages being compared seem to have parted ways. I have already noted the importance of the sea urchin genome sequencing. The fossil evidence shows the echinoderm and chordate lineages have been distinct since the base of the Cambrian Period (ca. 570 million years ago). How much earlier than that these lineages separated can be estimated by other means.

     Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, we can never know exactly when two lineages separated. Even so, the continuing discoveries of important connecting link fossils is steadily improving the precision of these studies. (Please don’t trot out all those misrepresentations of radiometric dating. Creationists have been using the same fallacious (and sometimes deceptive) arguments since Whitcomb and Morris’ times. Again, studying a good book such as THE AGE OF THE EARTH (1991) by my friend G. Brent Dalrymple, or a more up-to-date text, would do wonders to eliminate creationist misunderstandings of how radiometric dating actually works and how sources of error in fact are minimized.)

     To get back to Ways #1 and #2:

     The two methods can be used to validate each other. When both methods give the same result, we can have great confidence in the result and plan functional experiments with confidence. When they conflict, we must be more suspicious and conduct preliminary experiments to try to understand whether the difference is due to error or simply different physiologies. In any case, the results of conserved-sequence studies is already leading to discovery of important regulatory processes (e.g., the discovery of the roll of short RNA sequences in gene regulation) — processes which shortly will be used to save lives and facilitate gene therapies.

     Concerning chromosomes:

     Mel writes that “While superficially humans and chimps are strikingly similar, intrinsically they are excludingly (sic) different. The chimps have two (sic) many pairs of chromosomes.” It is true that chimps and gorillas have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46. Nevertheless, the chromosomes are nearly identical in many fine details. If one stains the chromosomes to produce the famous product-code-like banding that allows chromosomes to be compared in detail, one sees that despite some inversions and a few translocations, virtually all the particular banding patterns of the human chromosomes have their exact counterparts in the ape chromosomes. Moreover, it can see by this staining technique that two ape chromosomes have fused to form a single human chromosome that retains all the detailed patterns of the ape chromosomes. This work was done back in the 60s and now can be used as a reference guide for annotating the several genomes. By comparing the chromosomes of gorillas, chimps, humans, and orangutans, it is possible to work out the sequence of chromosomal rearrangements that accompanied the evolutionary developments of the species in question. Again, this is much like reconstructing the evolutionary histories of biblical manuscripts.

     Well, I’ve run out of time for a while. I really would like to know what everybody thinks about narrowing the gap between chimps and humans by 51% by genetic engineering. This is a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) of the sort Albert Einstein loved to come up with. Unfortunately, I can’t claim credit for it.

     For reason,

     Frank Zindler

154. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 5th, 2006 at 7:06pm:

     ---

     In reply to Mel regarding his previous post concerning carbon dating and, in particular, citing “Chemical Principles” (Masterton, Slowinski, Stanitski 6th edition; page 811).

     Mel, could you perhaps have misunderstood the article. My understanding is that it is not the C14/C12 ratio which may vary by 10% but the perceived carbon-dated ages as verified by the known ages of historical artifacts. It seems to me that what the three authors are saying is that the time calculation is dependant upon the ratio but that comparisons with articles of known historical age demonstrate that the ratio over time appears to have remained within 10%. Is it not therefore invalid for you to do a spurious calculation using a ratio of 1 to 10 rather than one of 9 to 10. I don’t wish to accuse you of deliberate sharp practice in using the 0.1 figure in your second calculation as though it represented a 10% difference in the ratio so I would be grateful if you would respond in explanation.

     Regards

     Samphire

     PS Thanks to FZ for the time he has taken in detailed explanations. I hope the ground is not too stony.

     PPS To all those who have written suggesting a letter to Jeb Bush, as a limey knowing little of your legal system, did not the case arise as a federal indictment and therefore Jeb as a state politician can have no influence upon it?

155. 

     CMarychurch

     Said this on December 5th, 2006 at 7:21pm:

     ---

     TO MFOX:

     ——-
     Here is the biggest problem with C-14 dating as communicated to us in “Chemical Principles” (Masterton, Slowinski, Stanitski 6th edition; page 811).

     “This method has been applied to date a wide variety of organic objects. It depends upon an assumption that cannot be proved. For carbon-14 dating to be valid, the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere must have remained constant over centuries. Ages estimated by this method agree within +/-10% with historical records, suggesting that the assumption is valid.”
     ——-

     CM- That 1986 book is wrong or badly written. Calibration curves for C14 dating are now standard practice. Note also the observation that even uncalibrated dates closely match known dates.

     ————
     the bit of bone is 30,000 years old, given our assumption. But what if, long ago when this creature died, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere was not as high? Let’s assume that Xd = 10% of Xo. We find the same bit of bone [.....] is 11,000 years old?
     ———–

     CM – But here is the problem with the hypothetical scenario … there is no evidence there has been a ten fold change in C14 levels. And if there was then this would be compensated for with calibration.

     ———-
     Now, I don’t want to jump to any conclusions but here we have three professional chemists who say that the dating depends on the ratio. Are they wrong?
     ———

     CM – They are absolutely correct regarding the ratio being important. Nobody is claiming otherwise. However, Young Earth evangelists like Hovind (and this badly written book) are claiming the ratio is assumed to be constant which is false.

156. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on December 6th, 2006 at 5:12am:

     ---

     Mary,

     (my name is not Mary)

     Could you be Carl Marychurch, author of what used to be
     http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
     one of the longest running and most vocal anti-Hovind websites, come to gloat?

     If you’d rather be called Carl, then introduce yourself.
     Most of us have already told everyone who we are or given our testimonies.

     If you are Carl Marychurch, we’re honored that you’ve joined us.
     After all the articles you’ve written, the research you’ve posted on your website, and the volumes you’ve written asking for a debate, I’m surprised you don’t seem to understand at least theoretically the possible consequences carbon 14 buildup in the atmosphere or the burial of almost all organic carbon in a young earth model or global flood model.
     I’m also surprised that you didn’t start posting on this site while Dr. Hovind was here to respond but waited until he couldn’t. I understand your last debate was against 14 year old Phillip O’Donnell, on his website
     http://www.livingdinos.com

     Two great audio lectures on carbon 14 and radioisotope dating by Dr. Russell Humphreys can be found at
     http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx?keywords=carbon

     Some good science facts about C-14 can be found at:
     http://www.c14dating.com/

     Please note that I am as skeptical about conclusions drawn form scientific observations as you are about the bible (not the observations, just the conclusions).

     I’m glad to see many people that Dr. Hovind reached over the years with his seminars are able to stand up for themselves especially against so knowledgeable opponents of creationism as Frank Zindler and possibly Carl Marychurch.

     For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
     For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. …
     For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. …
     Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
     1 Corinthians 1: 18 – 25

157. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 6th, 2006 at 6:10am:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 8:48am:
     Frank,

     Suppose a man has sex with a sheep. Note that this is a clear abomination to the Lord but I believe it has actually happened more than a few times, just recall Genesis 6: 5:

     “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

     Now that is the heart of Frank, Melvin, Moses, bioteacher, and Kent, just to name a few, each with their own particular flavor for sin.

     Samphire: So you attribute the great advances in medicine over the past hundred years to man’s “particular flavour for sin”? Or when you talk of “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart” perhaps you are referring only to the Christians’ preoccupation with sex? Anyway, if God had not intended man to have sex with sheep he would have created neither the Welsh nor the gumboot. (it’s a joke)

     Back to the man-with-sheep sex scandal, what happens? Do we get a little man-sheep running around? No. We get nothing but separation from God and His will. The reason we get nothing is because the process is designed to give us nothing so that things will remain as they were created. Random uncontrolled change is ruled out from the moment of creation.

     Samphire: Wrong. Otherwise we would not get babies born with genetic diseases. It is selection and the ability to reach maturity and procreate which are the controlling factors.

     What awful evolution would ensue if fruit was wrought from this activity?

     Samphire: Wrong – evolution could not happen at all for obvious reasons. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand the basic elements of the theory.

     Stick to your own kind is the instruction from God. Some would say that this means black people should not marry white people. This does not make Biblical sense to me. If two can mate and the fruit of their action is viable, then they are of the same kind. A horse and a donkey are not of the same kind, unless of course you can show me a mule that is not a dead end.

     Samphire: So how do you account for ring species in which each member can mate with its neighbour but individuals cannot viably mate with members on the opposite side of the ring? I am thinking of the Ensatina Salamander and Larus Gulls. The salamander is a particularly wonderful example of speciation in process with all the intermediate species present and alive. How many of the Salamanders and Gulls would Noah have had to take on board to make sure that the present evolutionary position would be maintained? Do you deny that the Salamanders and the Gulls are the same “kind”?. This is a stumbling block for Mr H. His definition of “kind” as taken from his slide show appears to be what a four-year-old child can recognise as a “kind”. Therefore, moths and butterflies are of one kind but St.Bernard mountain dogs and chiwawas probably aren’t. Sheer nonsense, of course.

     There are, without question, variations within kinds. This is also by design. This variation is carefully controlled as the plan for our physical being is meticulously written in our specific DNA composition created during meiosis and set in motion at fertilization/conception. You probably would claim that the process of crossing over which takes place just prior to the first meiotic division is a random shuffling. You may also be so bold as to say that the distribution of traits to individuals is ruled by the “laws” of probability. Let me remind you that probability theory is used in very specific situations. In each of these situations we concede a lack of understand, ignorance of, the actual processes that are at play. It would be a supernatural intervention by the great god of chance for randomness to play any role in any physical process. Chance can’t cause anything. Chance can’t do anything. The large stone god Dagon had more potential than chance, for if someone pushed it over it could crush you.

     Samphire: So how do you account for radio-activity? The ToE is based upon the definition that evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. It goes further by stating that the change in frequency is caused not by chance but by natural selection. You continue to erect and destroy a straw man. Why do you and your fellow creationists perpetuate this error? Also, contrary to your argument, randon mutation occurs continually as evidenced by the individuality of each person’s junk DNA.

     Perhaps we agree on one point? While superficially humans and chimps are strikingly similar, intrinsically they are excludingly different. The chimps have two many pairs of chromosomes. This subject might bring to the mind of the materialist; “Hey, lets find out.” It was actually attempted in Russia I believe and you guessed it, nothing happened except separation from God and His will. Why would they even think of doing such a thing? Don’t they have any morals? Well, they believe they have no morels.

     Samphire: Who says about themselves that they have no morals?

     You see they can’t find morals under a microscope in the same way they can’t see God under a microscope. And since they can’t find them there, they do not exist.

     Samphire: Who says so? I’ve never come across anybody who has ever said such a thing.

     Or would you like to show me the moral gene? And perhaps the murderer lacks the “spelling” of the moral gene. How can we fault him for his behavior? Let him be. He is only acting in the beautifully randomly determined way his chemical makeup dictates he should by all the physical laws that control him. He has done nothing “wrong”.

     Samphire: What happened to morality when the Jews were ordered by God to kill all the males of their neighbouring tribe. To quote the Lord of Hosts “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”. What a wonderful example of morality. Many tribes and nations have thrived down the ages despite having had no prior sight of the Jewish mythology and its Ten Commandments. Believing in the power of their own god how many men have gone to war declaring “God is on the opponent’s side”? Very few, I imagine. Morality is nothing but a social construct. Without it, society would not survive. And the need for humanity to exist in a social structure in order to survive as a species is an evolutionary and therefore a genetic matter. I suggest that you try Lewis Wolpert’s “Six impossible things before breakfast” for a different slant on how belief and morality may have arisen through evolutionary pressures.

158. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 6th, 2006 at 6:19am:

     ---

     fertich
     Said this at 11:58am:
     May the Lord bless you for taking a stand for righteousness.

     Today, John Bunyan is praised as a hero of the faith for refusing to take a license to preach.

     At the time, I wonder what other Christian leaders thought about Pastor Bunyan’s stance?

     Samphire: If he had stolen his flock’s social security payments then I think that the answer would have been “not much”. Nor did he go about preaching from a Winnebago but on foot. If Mr H really wants to comply wth Christ’s teaching then he should sell the bus and give the money to the poor or has the IRS already got a lien on it?.

159. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on December 6th, 2006 at 9:25am:

     ---

     To Frank,

     QUESTIONS ABOUT CYTOCHROME C

     (After you’re done correcting my spelling and grammar, please answer the questions.)

     I believe Cytochrome c is a small jumper between Cytochrome o and Cytochrome a in a chain of proteins that transports electrons in cellular respiration?

     In Keeton, Gould’s, Biological Science 1986 the chain in a mitochondria looks like this.

     FP – FeS a – FeS b – Cyt b – Q – Cyt b2 – Cyt o – Cyt c – Cyt a – Cyt a3

     (If this is wrong, please jot down the correct electron transport chain that we are talking about it won’t really matter for the questions.)

     (1) Why is Cytochrome c the protein the one evolutionists always bring up?

     (2) Why would this protein be the best match for the evolutionary tree out of all other protiens?

     (3) What would you consider to be the minimum number of proteins in the chain to carry out electron transport during respiration.?

     (4) Are these proteins used anywhere else in the cell or do they have to all evolve at the same time ?

     (5) I believe every stage of respiration involves an enzyme and each enzyme is a complex protein machine that allows a chemical reaction to take place.

     Examples
     Hexokinase
     Phosphoglucoisonmerase
     Phosphofructokinase
     Aldolase
     Phosophotriose isomerase
     Phosophglycermutase
     Enolase
     Pyuvate kinase

     And on and on ….

     I also believe some of these enzymes take energy from a previous step to make possible the next step.

     So then what is the evolutionary benefit if one of these proteins “evolves”
     without the other?

     (6) What do you feel is the probability of forming a cytochrome c protein by chance?

     I know cytochrome c is about 104 amino acids long.

     I don’t have the number of amino acids for the other proteins on hand, but what do you feel is the reasonable percentage of amino acids that can be substituted in a protein and it still function?

     The total number of variations shown in my book for the amino acid sequence of cytochrome c for each amino acid across the genome of 9 mammals, 8 other vertebrates, 2 insects, 2 fungi, and 3 plants are:
     1 3 5 5 4 1 3 3 4 1 4 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 5 1 3 2 1 1 3 2
     1 3 3 6 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 1 2 5 2 3 2 6 1 6 4 3 2 2 5 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
     3 1 5 1 2 2 1 6 9 2 1 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 6 4 3 5 4

     (1 amino acid always at position 1, 3 different amino acids can occupy position 2, 5 different amino acids can occupy position 3)

     (Remember these sequences were chosen by the author to illustrate the differences between cytochrome c proteins along the evolutionary tree.)

     That gives 1.2 x 10^33 possible working variations using know substitutions.
     Do you feel this is reasonable?

     The total number of different proteins that can be made by forming a chain 105 amino acids long from the 20 possible amino acids is 20^105 = 2.0 x 10^135

     Assume 1.2 x 10^33 working variations of cytochrome c in 2.0 x 10^135 possible combinations, or a one in 1.6 x 10^102 chance of forming a working cytochome c protein from random combinations of amino acids, or for coding for this protein in DNA or RNA by random mutation.

     Wikipedia says, there are about 10^80 atoms in the universe.

     There are about 1.3 x 10^16 seconds in 10 billion years.

     (7) How and where do you believe this protein came to be?

     I have been told that right next door to cytochrome c in eubacteria, chloroplasts and mitochondria, the synthesis of ATP is carried out by a molecular machine known as ATP synthase. This machine is one of the “Paley’s watches” of cellular machinery.

     Paley said, in his book Natural Theology, that we know a watch is a designed and created artifact because:

     “ … we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending to one result:– We see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavour to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain (artificially wrought for the sake of flexure), communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in, and apply to, each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance, and from the balance to the pointer; and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion, as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed (it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood), the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”

     Please look at this cellular watch:

     A video of its workings:

     http://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/movie.htm

     http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/movs/synthase.mov

     The complexity and fit of its componets:

     http://nature.berkeley.edu/~hongwang/Project/ATP_synthase/

     (8) How would you contend that this complex machine arose by chance?

     Please also look at this nanomachine:

     http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html

     http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/files/011a.wmv

160. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 6th, 2006 at 12:26pm:

     ---

     Samphire wrote:
     “Mel, could you perhaps have misunderstood the article. My understanding is that it is not the C14/C12 ratio which may vary by 10% but the perceived carbon-dated ages as verified by the known ages of historical artifacts. It seems to me that what the three authors are saying is that the time calculation is dependant upon the ratio but that comparisons with articles of known historical age demonstrate that the ratio over time appears to have remained within 10%. Is it not therefore invalid for you to do a spurious calculation using a ratio of 1 to 10 rather than one of 9 to 10. I don’t wish to accuse you of deliberate sharp practice in using the 0.1 figure in your second calculation as though it represented a 10% difference in the ratio so I would be grateful if you would respond in explanation.”

     I apologize if I was not clear. My assumption Xd = 10% of Xo was arbitrary and in no way connected to the +/-10% error. I accept that if you dated some organic mater that has been dead for a “known” length of time the error would be less than 10%. The problem with that is we do not agree entirely on what is known.

     If it is indeed invalid of me to do spurious calculation using Xd = 10% of Xo, then it is also invalid of you to do the same with Xd = 100% of Xo. That is the point I was trying to make.

     CM wrote:

     “But here is the problem with the hypothetical scenario … there is no evidence there has been a ten fold change in C14 levels. And if there was then this would be compensated for with calibration.”

     Yes, I agree that there is no indisputable evidence that the 14C levels have changed. It is also the case that there is no indisputable evidence that the 14C levels have stayed the same. That is the very reason why any assumed ratio about the distant past is improper if it is not qualified as was done in the chemistry text I quoted. I will have more to say about the calibration curves.

     I would also like to thank Frank for his detailed explanation of his position. It will take me a few days to digest it before I respond.

     -Mel

161. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 6th, 2006 at 7:33pm:

     ---

     Hi Mel,

     Thank you for that response. I agree that it is most unlikely that c14 levels would remain constant. In fact, it would be most surprising if that were the case. However, I still think that you over-egged the pudding in using 10% of a present day c14 concentration when the authors of the paper were talking of a 10% difference in perceived age without first making it clear what you were doing.

     I have been watching a video on the AlphaNova website which I found quite dishonest or, more generously, disingenuous. Have a look and perhaps you would like to comment. It is at http://www.worldbydesign.org/alphanova/programs/c14dating.html

162. 

     CMarychurch

     Said this on December 7th, 2006 at 3:28am:

     ---

     ———————-
     Could you be Carl Marychurch, author of what used to be http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/ one of the longest running and most vocal anti-Hovind websites, come to gloat?
     If you’d rather be called Carl, then introduce yourself. Most of us have already told everyone who we are or given our testimonies.

     CM- I’m not here to gloat nor am I here to massage my own ego.

     ———–
     After all the articles you’ve written, the research you’ve posted on your website, and the volumes you’ve written asking for a debate, I’m surprised you don’t seem to understand at least theoretically the possible consequences carbon 14 buildup in the atmosphere or the burial of almost all organic carbon in a young earth model or global flood model.

     CM – Kent Hovind didn’t mention it so I didn’t bother writing about it. And I didn’t “write volumes” asking for a debate.

     ————–
     I’m also surprised that you didn’t start posting on this site while Dr. Hovind was here to respond but waited until he couldn’t. I understand your last debate was against 14 year old Phillip O’Donnell, on his website http://www.livingdinos.com

     CM- I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that mentioning a recent acceptance of an invitation by a young Hovind fan to discuss (debate if you will) my allegations against Kent Hovind (amongst some other things) on his new website is a negative reflection upon myself. I didn’t bother posting here because there wasn’t much science discussed until very recently. Kent Hovind never does written debates – surely you should be aware of his favourite avoidance technique.

     ——————-
     Two great audio lectures on carbon 14 and radioisotope dating by Dr. Russell Humphreys can be found at
     http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx?keywords=carbon

     Some good science facts about C-14 can be found at:
     http://www.c14dating.com/

     CM – I’m not sure what you are trying to argue.

     ——————-
     I’m glad to see many people that Dr. Hovind reached over the years with his seminars are able to stand up for themselves especially against so knowledgeable opponents of creationism as Frank Zindler and possibly Carl Marychurch.

     CM- And yet what drew me into CSEblosgs was a claim by a Hovind fan repeating a claim originally made by Kent Hovind that C14 levels are assumed to be constant. Even Humphreys presentation shows that is false. In fact, the entire point of Humpherys’ argument is that the calibrations curves should be adjusted.

163. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on December 8th, 2006 at 2:48am:

     ---

     Frank Zindler Dec 4, 9:45 PM, said

     Assume for the sake of argument that genomic analysis ultimately shows there are exactly 100 genes and/or DNA control sequences that make up the genetic differences between humans and chimps. As I noted before, only ‘microevolutionary’ differences separate humans from chimps, and if genetic engineers replaced chimp genes with human genes one-at-a-time, at what point would you consider the product more human than chimp? Would just one human gene do it? How about 51 human genes? Or 99 human genes? When would it need to believe in Jesus to be saved? When would it need to be baptized? Does it make any sense to believe that humans have a soul, but organisms that are nearly 99% identical do not?

     *************************************************************

     Frank, I think we need to agree on what ‘microevolutionary’ differences are.

     Please give the criteria that you use to distinguish micro from macro evolution.

     Please also give your definition for a species, and a “kind” as used by creationist. So that we can discuss this.

     I know you think a man is just a monkey who lost his fur, but really I got to tell you that any 5 year old can tell the difference. I’m sure you yourself could provide me with a detailed list of scores of differences and if you were honest with yourself you would also differentiate between them based on the question Dr. Gish asked you in your debate with him, at what point would you allow it to date your daughter? 1%? 51%? 99%? At what point is it a talking animal (if that’s possible) and at what point could it become a son in law and father your grandchildren? Are humans eligible but organisms that are nearly 99% identical are not?

     Dr Menton has an excellent set of videos for viewing online dealing with ape-men called,
     Lucy, She’s no Lady.

     http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

     I don’t think you’ve fully answered mfox’s post from December 1st, 8:48 AM,

     Is this way of thinking that you pursue taking us in a direction you would be proud to see your children go or dragging us down to more bestial behavior?

     ***************************************************************

     mfox said:

     “While superficially humans and chimps are strikingly similar, intrinsically they are excludingly different. The chimps have two many pairs of chromosomes. This subject might bring to the mind of the materialist; “Hey, lets find out.” It was actually attempted in Russia I believe and you guessed it, nothing happened except separation from God and His will. Why would they even think of doing such a thing? Don’t they have any morals? Well, they believe they have no morels. You see they can’t find morals under a microscope in the same way they can’t see God under a microscope. And since they can’t find them there, they do not exist. Or would you like to show me the moral gene? And perhaps the murderer lacks the “spelling” of the moral gene. How can we fault him for his behavior? Let him be. He is only acting in the beautifully randomly determined way his chemical makeup dictates he should by all the physical laws that control him. He has done nothing “wrong”.”

     *****************************************************************

     For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

     For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

     Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

     For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

     Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

     Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

     And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

     Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

     Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

     For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

     And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

     And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

     Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

     Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

     Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

     Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

     *********************************************************

     Just a thought, I’ve passed out about 600 DVD’s of Dr Hovind’s seminar this year and he claims millions of his videos have gone out, also he was also arrested for withdrawing close to half a million dollars most of which came from selling his creationist material, so what is the approximate readership of American Atheist Magazine?

     Have a nice day.

     Doug Hove

164. 

     Matthew

     Said this on December 8th, 2006 at 9:21am:

     ---

     Doug Hove
     “I know you think a man is just a monkey who lost his fur,”

     Wrong, monkeys have tails. Humans, chimps, and gorillas are apes and do not have tails.

     “Just a thought, I’ve passed out about 600 DVD’s of Dr Hovind’s seminar this year and he claims millions of his videos have gone out, also he was also arrested for withdrawing close to half a million dollars most of which came from selling his creationist material, so what is the approximate readership of American Atheist Magazine?”

     Does not Kent Hovind say the majority is usually wrong and it this not an appealing to the masses fallacy?

165. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 8th, 2006 at 9:40am:

     ---

     Correct me if I am wrong. The calibration curves for C14-dating are constructed in the following way:

     Data is collected with respect to the presumed age of artifacts via a variety of scientific techniques. A regression model, most often linear, is then constructed to fit these data. This is the model that is used to calibrate the C14 dates.

     I know this is a superficial description but is it consistent with your (Frank, CM, Samphire) understanding of how the model is constructed? If not, you are free to fill in any important details, maybe a short list of techniques, about the calibration before I give my assessment of the procedure.

     -Mel

166. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 8th, 2006 at 10:34am:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 8:44pm:
     Samphire,

     Some odds and ends along the way:

     If Jesus calls what the mustard seed grows into a tree than it is a tree. That is what it means to have all authority given to you.

     We read from Matthew 16: 21

     21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

     If Friday be the first day then Sunday bet he third day, right.

     Let’s count how many times I tell you that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable before you correct the error of your ways.

     The following is from Wikipedia
     “The human genome has many different regulatory sequence which are crucial to controlling gene expression. These are typically short sequences that appear near and within genes. A systematic understanding of these regulatory sequences and how they together act as a gene regulatory network is only beginning to emerge from high-throughput expression and comparative genomics studies.
     Identification of regulatory sequences relies in part on evolutionary conservation. The evolutionary branch between the human and mouse, for example, occurred 70-90 million years ago. So computer comparisons of gene sequences that identify conserved non-coding sequences will be an indication of their importance in duties such as gene regulation.
     Another comparative genomic approach to locating regulatory sequences in humans is the gene sequencing of the puffer fish. These vertebrates have essentially the same genes and regulatory gene sequences as humans, but with only one-eighth the “junk” DNA. The compact DNA sequence of the puffer fish makes it much easier to locate the regulatory genes.”

     Two points: 1) as I mensioned to Frank we are only beginning to understand how this information is passed from generation to generation and 2) the regulatory sequence they are serching for has been pre-concieved to fit the evolutionary model. In other words, the regulatory sequence discovered by these evolutionists will be force fit to evolutionary ideology by ad hoc explanations. Again, I am o.k. with this for anyone who accepts the premise that all things can be explained by natural processes. As for a scientist, why would he/she not find the sequence and then determine if it fits the ideology? As far as “junk” DNA is concerned, one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. Perhaps it is not junk.

     Hi Mel,

     You wrote the above on the 29th and, having spent a long weekend in the Vosges, I have previously not found the time to reply.

     So if Jesus defines a mustard plant as a tree then we must accept it is a tree. OK, if you wish. I’ll let Linnaeus know he got it wrong

     Friday night is one night and Saturday night makes two nights. Matthew 12:40 speaks of three nights.

     Finally, I don’t really understand the point you are trying to make re falsification but if the tree already constructed from comparative anatomy failed to reflect a later tree constructed from a more recent study of biochemical attributes would that not be a falsification? I admit I am out of league on this subject.

     Regards

     Samphire

167. 

     Gordon_Comstock

     Said this on December 9th, 2006 at 9:15am:

     ---

     Darling,
     You are confusing POWER, dictatorial POWER, with LAW, U.S. Constitutional LAW.
     Sure!–dictators of all shapes and sizes and small bureaucractic formation LOVE to throw people in prison for not bowing down to them. That’s old hat; you should know that.
     But that’s got nothing to do with LAW.
     And I repeat: there is NO LAW WHICH REQUIRES A U.S. CITIZEN TO PAY INCOME TAXES.
     Watch the movie “America: From Freedom to Fascism.”
     Read “The Law the Never Was” by Bill Benson.
     And there are others.
     Inform yourself, Darling. Ignorance is slavery.
     And as Goethke said (paraphrase): “There is no one so much a slave as they who falsely believe they are free.”
     You are a slave, Darling. You are a slave. To a worldly tyrant. And what I can’t fathom is, how in the name of Jesus Christ can folks like you enjoy your servitude, in the face of history, and national law, and Scripture, all of which should make you ashamed to call yourself American, and/or a follower of Jesus Christ.
     Look, whatever, I don’t care. Just stop confusing power with law. Just stop. If I’m gonna believe you are out of high school, that I am speaking with an adult you , I’ve got to ask that you stop making such a fundamental error.

     darling
     Said this at 10:37am:
     ——————————————————————————–

     Gordon_Comstock, obviously you have not been reading these comments, because your questions have been asked and answered.

     But, if you really want to know, the answer is here:
     http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

     More importantly – despite all the crazy tax protester theories and rhetoric, no court has held or will hold that the Internal Revenue Code is invalid or that the Internal Revenue Service lacks power to levy or collect income taxes:
     http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

168. 

     Gordon_Comstock

     Said this on December 9th, 2006 at 12:06pm:

     ---

     As to the “irrelevance” of which you claim, it must be remembered (and for you, darling, it must needs be yet researched) that the ENTIRE MONETARY SYSTEM of the U.S. is UNconstitutional at this present time. I’ll cite a few sources which prove that:
     The U.S. Constitution, Article One, Sections Eight and Ten.
     The book: “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin.
     The book: “Secrets of the Federal Reserve” by Eustace Mullins.
     The book: “Thieves in the Temple” by Andre Michael Eggelletion.
     The booklet “Economic Solutions” by Peter Kershaw.
     DVD: “Phenomenon: Monopoly Men.”
     DVD: “America: From Freedom to Fascism.”

     As to the website you cited, try this one instead:
     http://www.afn.org/~govern/IRSkinny.html
     As you see, mine refutes yours, so we’re back to square one, and before we get off square one, YOU need to tell ME exactly WHEN the 16th Amendment was ratified, instead of merely, and UNconstitutionally being “declared” to be ratified.
     darling, I await the specifics of your answer.

     And again, I leave you also, darling, with these most applicable and pointed words of the Founding Father Samuel Adams:
     “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
     I submit to you, darling, that thee care not one wit for liberty, neither doth thou knowest what it even is.
     Remember the words of Sam Adams, darling. Remember them, let them sink in. If there is any hope for you, you will let them sink in, you will not ignore them and scoff, as you probably are at this immediate moment as you sit reading this.
     You don’t even have the law on your side, darling. You don’t even have the Supreme Law of the Land on your side in your defense of your own servitude, and yet lawlessly, shamelessly, grovelingly do you still defend that servitude.
     Snap out of it. Snap out of it, my friend.

     darling
     Said this at 10:37am:
     ——————————————————————————–

     Gordon_Comstock, obviously you have not been reading these comments, because your questions have been asked and answered.

     Not only that, but your question is irrelevant, because Mr. Hovind was not charged with failing to pay income tax.

     But, if you really want to know, the answer is here:
     http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

169. 

     Gordon_Comstock

     Said this on December 9th, 2006 at 12:15pm:

     ---

     Oh, and darling, as to my point about the entire U.S. monetary system being currently illegal, I forgot to finish my point, which is this:
     We live under an intrinsically illicit monetary system which is nevertheless coerced upon us. So who cares what Hovind or whoever does with their money, whether they “structure” it and give a deposit that 50 bucks short of reporting it to the IRS. Who cares?! That’s my point. The whole system is against the law, and is set before us to illegally curb our freedoms and illegally, unconstitutionally, unscripturally steal from us. Yes, it’s true; shocking only to people like you who are still getting their information from Satan’s worldly brainwashing system, but it’s true nonetheless. So if Hovind was just living as a free American would and should, according the the Supreme Law of the Land, then my question to you, darling, is this: Where do YOU get off defending lawlessness?
     Another question, darling: Are you as concerned about CIA-linked-and-back drug smuggling “structurers” like Barry Seal in this country, as you are about Kent Hovind’s “structuring”?
     I would really like to hear your answer on those, darling. Oh, and I sure hope you question the validity of that second one, that second question I just gave you. Please do, please, it’ll make my day. I’ll give you so many sources your monitor will flicker frenetically in trying to keep up with them all.

170. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 10th, 2006 at 7:47pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     In Matthew 12: 40 Jesus is quoted as saying he will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, this is true. And in fact, Jesus was not in the heart of the earth at all because the earth does not have a heart and he was dead less than three whole days before he was raised, so he could not have possibly spent three nights away. Was Jesus mistaken?

     Given the accounts in Matthew 16, 17, and 20 and the actual facts surrounding His death and resurrection it could hardly be the case that He was mistaken. He obviously knew what was going to happen in the minutest detail. Was Jesus lying?

     There are times when strict exactness is required. Say for instance when my daughter asks that I pick her up at the mall at 8:00 pm. She is with her friends and they are probably going to leave the mall at the same time. If I want to be sure she is not left alone (young girl alone at mall bad), then I should be there at 8:00 pm. There are other times when strict exactness is not required. Suppose my daughter and I are traveling in a car to one of her games and she is to be there by 8:00 pm and she asks me what time it is. I look at the clock as it reads 7:47 pm. Now I know we are only about five minutes away at the time so I respond to her question with “It’s a quarter to eight.” Have I lied to my daughter? The answer is no of course not. Neither am I mistaken. What I am doing is addressing the real question which was “Am I going to be late to my game?” My daughter knows the territory so when I tell her it’s a quarter to eight she knows we have plenty of time and she can relax with the knowledge that unless something out of the ordinary happens, we will be there on time.

     If you would read the whole of His discourse with the Pharisees in Matthew 12, then you may understand that the real issue in the hearts of the Pharisees by the time we reach verse 40 is not a sign from Jesus but what is it exactly that is expected of them. His answer is plain, repent – with all your heart – repent and follow Him. He then goes on to point out that these Pharisees, if they repent at all, will return to the evil of their ways even seven fold will they return to their evil ways.

     It would be just like the Pharisees to take your attitude concerning His statements with respect to Jonah. I can imagine the Pharisees witnessing His death and then seeing Him raised less than three whole days later ignoring the miraculous fulfillment of His prophecy and calling Him on being a few hours early.

     Jesus was strictly accurate every time it was required. He is on the record as predicting the events to a tee. He knows your heart and mine as well as He knew the hearts of the Pharisees and the faithful of that day. He is still to this day telling sinners they need to repent and follow Him. I pray that all will listen and heed the call.

     -Mel

171. 

     Gordon_Comstock

     Said this on December 11th, 2006 at 10:16am:

     ---

     darling,
     now for the punchline. That guy “Barry Seal” whom I mentioned above? That notorious drug smuggler who came and went over U.S. airspace, who generated drug money that was “structured” in and out of U.S. banks back and forth, he that was gunned down about a decade ago because he knew too much? Are you ready? Are you ready for the kicker? Here goes:
     He is linked to the Clintons; he is linked to the Bushes; he is linked to Ollie North; he is linked to the CIA; etc, etc.
     Sources, I’ve got sources. So many it’s silly. Try me.
     Now, are you beginning to get the picture of the Satanic system you are defending, and of the Godly man you are attacking?

172. 

     Gordon_Comstock

     Said this on December 11th, 2006 at 12:20pm:

     ---

     …but darling, prior to Barry Seal’s assassination, for years he came and went as he pleased in the U.S. He flouted laws, and arrests, and detainments, and trials. His planes flew in and out of U.S. airspace. He and his employees “structured” drug money in banks right and left.
     You don’t do that, you CAN’T do that, unless you’ve got connections. And he did. Oh, did he ever.
     darling, you are defending a system that smuggled heroine into this country by hiding it in the bodybags of fallen U.S. soldiers. And it wasn’t just a few; it was black op policy.
     The drugs are propping up our economy; and that’s just ONE horrendous thing wrong with our economy, which you seek so eagerly to defend.
     And you come against a guy like Hovind, who just seeks to act like a free American constitutionally ought?
     Wow.

173. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 11th, 2006 at 1:07pm:

     ---

     Ratiocarbon dating:

     For background the interested may read the description of radiocarbon dating provided by Wikipedia. As stated in an earlier post, I am comfortable using this technique but I would be very careful not to overstate its reliability especially when predicted ages exceed 10,000 years. I would be equally comfortable scraping the whole process simply because it can be so misleading.

     The problem remains: We do not know how much carbon was in the atmosphere pre-flood. Now you will say, “The flood never happened.” The truth is that the only scientific conclusions about the flood’s existence are based on premise. My premise is that the flood happened. If you can show that the flood could not have happened then be my guest. The materialist and the creationist do have at least one thing in common: We are both painting the target around the arrow.

     Take the Grand Canyon for example. You and I make the same observations about its present size, shape, composition, and location. We then reach vastly different scientifically plausible conclusions about its origin. Why, because we are painting our scientific explanation with our own palette of ideology around the measurements we agree on. That is to say we are connecting the dots of data based on the picture we want to see.

     I tried to show this to Frank with the Krebs cycle example he used but my background in that area proved to be too weak to form the proper argument. Perhaps here with the mathematical model, where my background is strong, of a calibration curve I can be more detailed in my explanation.

     It is easy and useful to calibrate dates based on facts like the prolific testing of atomic weapons. But it is dangerous to equate such a process with calibrating radiocarbon dates with tree ring dates or ice and sediment core dates or speleothem dates. All of these techniques are based on the same assumption that radiocarbon dating is based on, namely the uniformitarian principle (UP). It appears to me that virtually all modern scientists are comfortable with this premise (UP). The affect of this consensus is that the mere suggestion that 14C levels as recently as 5000 years ago could have been essentially non-existent is enough to throw the lot of them into a tizzy. I am not saying I can prove levels were that low. I am saying you can’t prove they were not and levels that low fit my premise that the Biblical account of the flood is true.

     You suppose correlation among dating procedures adds strength to your reasoning like the individual strands in a rope do when woven together. I submit that your reasoning is more like a chain which is only as strong as its weakest link. That link is the uniformitarian principle.

     A thought experiment: What if I wanted to know how long I will live? Given I believe the psychic powers of Madame Uniformitarian are authentic based on her ability to tell me that I am 44 years old after she inspects my drivers license, I may employ her to give answer to my question. If she were to look into her crystal ball and say “You will live to be 100 years old”, I might calibrate this prediction by asking her to read the Tarot cards, read my palm, consult the magic 8 ball, and consult the Ouija board. Finally, if I could establish a meaningful statistical correlation between and among these data, then I could make a scientific prediction as to the length of my life within a reasonable measure of precision.

     No offense to Madame intended, but if her psychic powers are actually not up to snuff, while precise my prediction may not have the desired level of accuracy.

     There is nothing wrong with the science of the calibration curve. There is nothing wrong with the scientific use of standard calibration curves to predict the age of an artifact. In fact I agree with Charles O`Neill when he says “the cubic spline provides a good curve fit for arbitrary data points.” [“Cubic Spline Interpolation MAE 5093” 28 May 2002] But please do NOT tell me or my 5th grade child in his public school that you know for a fact the artifact is that old. Please DO tell us, as did the chemists in the book I quoted, that the age you report is based on assumptions that can’t be proved. What would be badly written / misleading / lying would be to publish, under the guise of science, an age without the assumption disclaimer. Here, as stated on the BETA Analytic web site, is the proper scientific attitude: “It is always important to quote the data source and mathematics with your interpretations.” Kent Hovind is very upfront on his tape. He tells you right at the start his assumptions. Will any atheist here be as upfront and admit acceptance, without proof, of the Uniformitarian Principle?

     Now don’t get upset. I understand (UP) is manifest to you. That is why it is your premise. You think I am an idiot because UP is not plain to me. What is manifest to me are God and the truth and authority of His Word. Your position, that all can be explained via natural processes and all things have operated as they do now for all time past, can’t be reconciled with the God of the Bible. If Kent Hovind or I are engaged in bad science, then by all means point it out. But don’t attack our science because you disagree with our premise unless you can show, apart from violations of your premise, it to be false.

     -Mel

174. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 11th, 2006 at 6:46pm:

     ---

     Hi Compgene

     It is not what I was taught – no adult baptism, no eternal lfe. But what about Matthew 20:22-23? And Jesus also baptised with water (John 3:22). And in Acts 2:41 are you saying that all those guys were not baptised in water? How does that work with the Apostolic succession?

     I found it impossible to believe that the God of Love who created this amazing Universe could possibly be so pathetically trivial as to demand of the pinnacle of his creation the empty ceremony of being dunked under water in order to save them from the fires of His hell. I still do.

     Kind regards

175. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 11th, 2006 at 7:14pm:

     ---

     Hi, Mel.

     OK, again. Whatever you say. When Jesus says a mustard plant is a tree its a tree. When he prophesies he will be buried for three nights he only means two nights.

     However, when you say that you will deliver your daughter to the game at 8 on Monday morning and you actually deliver her at 8 on the Sunday then that really is bad, isn’t it? And if Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen why did he call it wrong? Why bother with the allusion to Jonah when he could have said “And just as Samphire will spend three days and three nights in a caravan at Llandudno in 1950…”. (true, by the way – we were driven out by a plague of earwigs. OK, OK its not biblical). But equally vapid when it comes to prophecy.

     I’m (obviously) not a biblical scholar but it seems to me that, if not the focus, verse 40 is a pretty important element of the entire chapter. Nor do I find the chapter very edifying in relation to Jesus’s personality. Your dismissal of the event is not convincing.

     Please would you give me an example of where Jesus was “strictly accurate”

176. 

     Rochnowski

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 12:21am:

     ---

     Brother Kent & Jo & Family,

     Have been praying for you for many years, and continue to do so. We love your testimony in the Lord Jesus Christ! If we can ever help, let us know…

     In Christ Jesus…

     “At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
     Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” ~ Matthew 18:1-11

177. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 2:02am:

     ---

     Hi Mel,

     You said “”I am not saying I can prove levels were that low. I am saying you can’t prove they were not and levels that low fit my premise that the Biblical account of the flood is true.”

     What have c14 levels got to do with the Flood?

178. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 4:41am:

     ---

     Mel said:
     “A thought experiment: What if I wanted to know how long I will live? Given I believe the psychic powers of Madame Uniformitarian are authentic based on her ability to tell me that I am 44 years old after she inspects my drivers license, I may employ her to give answer to my question. If she were to look into her crystal ball and say “You will live to be 100 years old”, I might calibrate this prediction by asking her to read the Tarot cards, read my palm, consult the magic 8 ball, and consult the Ouija board. Finally, if I could establish a meaningful statistical correlation between and among these data, then I could make a scientific prediction as to the length of my life within a reasonable measure of precision.”

     Not a clever example, Mel, I am afraid. There is no conjunction between crystal balls, tarot cards and your future much-lamented demise. At least, not unless you drive at high speed into the back of a lorryload of such rubbish on its way to San Francisco. However, you are not alone in putting up straw men arguments. Mr.H. constantly tries to represent evolution in terms of the evolution in the design of motor cars ignoring the fact that cars do not self-replicate. You would do better to carry out your mathematical analysis on the deaths of your fellow humans measured by life style, sex, weight, height, even religion, parentage etc. Having done that you could then call yourself an actuary and make a lot of money advising the life insurance industry. Indeed, Uniformitarianism is the bedrock of the life insurance industry.

     As to the accuracy of your crystal ball reader’s prediction she may perhaps be an amateur actuary and took a good look at you as you entered the room and came to her own reasonably acurate conclusions based upon her experience and only pretended to see something in her crystal ball although I doubt that any person claiming psychic powers would ever be guilty of such charlatanism, would they? Obviously, I don’t include Sylvia Browne in that stricture as she doesn’t appear to have any psychic powers. Much better to use actual artifacts of known historical age to establlsh the calibration curves before using the evidence of the curve on other artifacts of unknown age. Of course, every dating comes with a built-in error factor.

     I very much doubt that any physicist would get into a “tizzy” over your supposition that c14/c12 ratios were substantially lower before the Flood than after since there is no evidence for it. Where are the eroded continental sediments on the sea-floor, where did all that water disappear to, where are all the millions of species which appeared in the fossil record allegedly laid down in the Flood but which are no longer around today, how come we still have species around which were not on the Arc (such as whales – Genesis 6:17)? The list is endless.

179. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 8:25am:

     ---

     Frank,

     You wrote:

     “I am disappointed that no one has tried to answer my hypothetical question concerning the ethics and theology of transferring human genes into chimpanzees. Because this is so crucial to Christian theology, I want to restate the problem before answering the best of the challenges posed to me.”

     I do not understand the ethical question. You seem to be suggesting an engineering problem in which the goal is to transform a human being into a chimpanzee. From a Biblical perspective you can’t even begin to make a case for this project being ethical; rather, it is abominable. Not only that but it is doomed to failure. You believe, without proof, that all we are is carried in the genetic make up of our DNA. The Biblical truth is that little of what we truly are is contained in the physical make up of our body. We are spiritual beings. This is so by the power and will of God almighty. You can no more say that I am a complex organization of chemical compounds as you could say I am the hotel I stayed in last week.

     So why is your hypothetical project abominable? Well our body is supposed to be a temple unto God. You don’t go tearing down and putting up the temple the way you like it, in the same way you don’t go around knocking out walls in your hotel room. The place does not belong to you. God made the temple the way He wants it. Don’t mess with the DNA of humans to try to make them something they are not and don’t mess with the DNA of animals trying to make them human. DON’T! It is just that simple and there is no ethical dilemma to play out.

     -Mel

180. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 10:26am:

     ---

     Hi, Mel

     Both my parents unfortunately suffered damage in, to use your analogy, the hotel attic area. They both got Alzheimer’s, first my father and then, a few years later, my mother. As the disease took hold – and it is only a physical deterioration of the brain – their spirituality eventuality disappeared from view even though they lived on for many more months. Whereas they were both previously ardent Christians towards the end they had no ability to take any interest in anything whatsoever. Christianity was of no further interest. It was the humanity of their children and the carehome workers who helped them through.

     When they were much younger my parents would visit the carehome in which my mother eventually resided in order to sing hymns to the old folks. When it became time for my mother to enter the home such church visits had long since ended. Hardly anyone came from the church to visit her, just one kind saint. In that church my father had been an elder for many years and my mother had run the Mothers’ Meeting.

     Also for many years and even when they were elderly but still fairly fit it had been my parents’ habit to go out of their way to pick up one or two old ladies from around our town and take them to and from the Sunday services by car. Before her mind went completely we tried to get members of the congregation to do the same for my mother (all her children lived a couple of hours away from her). None would put themselves out. Instead, they voted a small sum of money for taxi fares for her. We sent the money back. None of us, their children, were short of the taxi fare. None of those lovely christians could be bothered to do for my mother what she had done for many others over the years. When she eventually died, we chose not to hold the funeral service at that church, a church that my father had been instrumental in building some fifty years earlier.

     I remain to be convinced that we are much more than a very complex chemical machine. For my parents, once the machinery had gone wrong, it is as though the hotels had both become vacant and derelict.

181. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 3:47pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     You wrote:
     “What have c14 levels got to do with the Flood?”

     Understand the flood was not just a flood. It was a cataclysmic event that changed drastically all of the physical systems on the earth. Before the flood a strong magnetic field coupled with the waters above, some sort of water canopy, protected the earth from any harmful radiation. This would have prevented the formation of 14C as it is produced today and since for that matter.

     Get out of your head the simple story of hard rain for forty days and then all the water washing away. Great storehouses of water were released from below in what must have been the total destruction of vast portions of the surface of the planet. The highest peaks pre-flood would be dwarfted by today’s standards. The world was a very different place pre-flood.

     -Mel

182. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 12th, 2006 at 4:54pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     Unfortunately the church is full of sinners with a free will. Some, like your parents, were not just hearers of the Word but doers also. I look forward to meeting them in heaven. That is where they will spend eternity with no more suffering, no more pain, no more Alzheimer’s.

     As for the attic, if you are to understand the Biblical world view, then you must get the fact that we do not live in a place that is much like the original creation. It is a fallen world. Sin has entered in causing much destruction. One of the primary vehicles of this destruction is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law was not in place before Adam sinned.

     Now we have disease, suffering, and death. The reason for these is that they are the general consequence of sin. You see I don’t mean to say that your parents Alzheimer’s was caused by any particular sin they committed but rather disease is a symptom of the fallen nature of this world. We, including your parents, deserve far worse than the suffering you witnessed them go through. The GOOD NEWS is that the major consequence of sin, eternal death, is reversible by faith in Jesus Christ and through the Grace of the one true living God. You asked me on what point was Jesus strictly exact. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; none come to the Father accept through the Son.

     Your parents knew this and lived their lives in full expectation the promises of God would be fulfilled in Christ and His work on the cross. My prayer is that you too will come to the knowledge that through the Son you may have life and life to the full.

     My point to Frank was that we are not to intentionally harm, damage, or otherwise distort the physical body we have been given. All the while we understand that this body is temporary, as we wait for our new and everlasting body. Any suffering that we go threw at present can’t be compared to the immeasurable joy that awaits us. Until then we count it all joy that we are considered worthy to suffer in bringing glory to the King.

     -Mel

183. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on December 13th, 2006 at 3:20am:

     ---

     Regarding whether a mustard plant can be a tree:

     http://www.4to40.com/earth/geography/htm/plantsindex.asp?counter=244

     Mustard is the common name applied to certain annual plants that are grown for their pungent seed and for their leaves, which are eaten as greens. Like cabbages and turnips, they are members of the genus Brassia, family Cruciferae. Three species of mustard are commonly cultivated: black mustard, B. nigra, whose seeds produce the strongest flavor; white or yellow mustard, B. hirta; and Indian mustard, or mustard greens, B. junea. Mustard is native to southern Europe and southwestern Asia and has been cultivated since ancient times. (The mustard of the Bible, Mat. 13.31, 32 was probably black mustard, which grows to heights of 3.7 m/12 ft in Israel.) Mustards are cultivated today in temperate regions throughout the world.

     Whole mustard seeds are used as a pickling flavoring and to add pungency to many cooked foods. Powdered dry mustard is a common kitchen spice. Its sharp, hot flavor develops when the powder is moistened, and the resulting paste must be used immediately. Prepared mustard is a mixture of powdered mustard with salt, spices, and lemon juice, with wine or vinegar to preserve the mustard’s pungency. Mustard oil is used medicinally as an ingredient of liniments, stomach stimulants, and emetics.

     Regarding whether Jesus really spent three days and three nights in the tomb:

     http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/37/

     (Chuck Missler)

     Q: A question about Good Friday:

     “How can there be three days and three nights between Friday and Sunday?”
     The observances of Good Friday and Easter Sunday have perpetuated the traditional chronology that the crucifixion took place on a Friday, that the Lord’s body was buried on that day about 6 p.m., and that he rose from the dead early on Sunday. There are some, however, that feel this tradition is at odds with the Scriptural record. It also seems to conflict with certain prophetic and legal facts.
     Three Days

     The first problem is reckoning “three days” between Friday evening and Sunday morning. I once co-hosted a TV show which had the famed apologist John Warwick Montgomery as a guest. This issue came up and John rendered the traditional rationalization, pointing out that the Jews reckoned a partial day as a whole day.

     I turned to my co-host and explained, “You must remember that John is an attorney, and that’s the way they bill.” (John almost fell out his chair laughing; he didn’t realize that I was aware of his distinguished legal background.) But the difficulty remains. Our Lord’s definitive statement is one of the problems:

     “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matthew 12:40

     The mention of nights as well as days makes it hard to render this as simply an idiom rather than a statement of fact. Further, when Paul declares the resurrection of Christ to be “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Corinthians 15:4, it is difficult to conclude that he wasn’t citing Jonah 1:17. Intensifying the issue, the “three days” was a principal issue at the trial of Jesus.

     “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus… At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Matthew 26:59-61
     What did Jesus really say? “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2:19. The same phrase reoccurs in the gospels a dozen times. It also seems to frequently reoccur in prophetic patterns.

     The Sabbaths

     Nowhere in the Gospels does it assert that Christ was crucified on a Friday. In Mark 15:42, it refers to “…the day before the sabbath.” This may be the root of the misunderstanding. The Jews had other sabbaths in addition to the weekly Shabbat (Saturday).

     There were seven “high sabbaths” each year; the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the 15th of Nisan, being one of them. Further, Matthew 28:1 should read, “At the end of the sabbaths,” implying a plurality of sabbaths that week.

     If Passover, the 14th of Nisan, fell earlier in the week, the 15th could have been any day prior to Saturday, the weekly sabbath. “When the sabbaths were past” would, of course, be Sunday (actually, Saturday after sundown).

     The Jericho Journey

     Another problem with a Friday crucifixion is John 12:1: “Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany…” (from Jericho). The Friday view would make six days earlier the weekly Shabbat, and on this day such a journey was legally out of the question for a devout Jew.
     Summary

     As for the Friday or Wednesday issue, there are many good scholars on each side of this controversy. I personally have become rather cynical toward any traditions that are not supported by Scripture. Good Friday is the “traditional” view. The Wednesday Crucifixion is known as the “reconstructed view.” The important thing is that the tomb was empty. The authorities made sure that this was indisputable.

     Indeed, He is risen!

     This article was originally published in the
     April 1995 Personal Update NewsJournal.

     Creation CD: I would also like to point out that a Jewish day begins at sundown of the day before, according to our way of thinking.
     “and the evening and morning were the first day …”
     Also just because a particular pope sets a date for Easter, Christmas, or the cruxifixion don’t make it so. That applies to places also, such as the Red Sea crossing, Mt. Arrat, etc..

184. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 13th, 2006 at 9:26am:

     ---

     Frank,

     I am a teacher. I make my living answering questions. You know more than I do about the Krebs cycle. I asked you a question. I read your response to my question many times.

     I think it is fair to say, you did not answer my question. So, not to be a pest but, if the discovery of completely different enzymes doing the same exact chemical job among humans and chimps would imply they are not related and thus falsify evolution, why does this discovery among prokaryotes not show them to be unrelated and hence falsify evolution?

     -Mel

185. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 13th, 2006 at 12:25pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     You wrote:

     “Not a clever example, Mel, I am afraid. There is no conjunction between crystal balls, tarot cards and your future much-lamented demise.”

     Are you telling me that the fortunes made by psychics are ill gotten? I can’t believe there exists no connection between these long practiced methods and the reality of the future. Madame Uniformitarian better hope that her methods correlate if she wants me to go home and tell my friends that she knows her stuff.

     Kidding aside, my point in this example is to show that mathematical correlation can exist where no real physical implications can be made. The UP must be true in order for any of these dating methods to be necessarily true. This is just a flat out fact. Truly, your checking 14C dates against tree ring dates is only done to improve the supposed accuracy and does nothing to support UP which would imply factual accuracy. We either believe Madame knows her stuff or we don’t. There is one difference between Madame and UP. We can check Madame’s predictions. We can wait and see if I live to be 100 or not. We have no way of verifying the very old ages given by 14C. We can’t go back in time. We can only check them against equally suspect methods.

     No straw man here. Are you not telling me that you believe the physical systems in place now on the earth have always operated the way they do now? Are you not telling me that the only possible fluctuation in atmospheric 14C must be explainable by systems in place now? Are you not telling me that the evidence showing that every square inch of the planet was at one time under water, including what is now at the summit of Everest, can only be explained by the slow movement of continents we see today?

     The bottom line is this: Today’s facts can only be evidence of past events if we presuppose the conditions of the past.

     -Mel

186. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 13th, 2006 at 2:02pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     You ask:

     Where did modern day whales come from if all the life that had breath in it was destroyed in the flood?

     Remember, my premise is that the universe is an open system even today. God did not loose His powers to create after the sixth day. Not every detail of the history of the universe is contained in the Bible. He could have simply spoken the whales into existence had he so desired.

     You ask:

     Where are the eroded continental sediments on the sea-floor and here did all that water disappear to?

     I could ask you the same thing about the sediment from the Grand Canyon and the water did not disappear, it is in the oceans. Before the flood the water was stored under the ground and in the upper atmosphere, just as the Bible describes. Remember great destruction occurred, great destruction.

     -Mel

187. 

     CreationCD

     Said this on December 14th, 2006 at 2:12am:

     ---

     Regarding whether a mustard plant can be a tree:

     Regarding whether Jesus really spent three days and three nights in the tomb:

     *************************************************************************

     NOTE: I posted this over 24 hours ago, so I am reposting it. Sorry if it’s a repeat.

     *************************************************************************

     Regarding whether a mustard plant can be a tree:`

     http://www.4to40.com/earth/geography/htm/plantsindex.asp?counter=244

     Mustard is the common name applied to certain annual plants that are grown for their pungent seed and for their leaves, which are eaten as greens. Like cabbages and turnips, they are members of the genus Brassia, family Cruciferae. Three species of mustard are commonly cultivated: black mustard, B. nigra, whose seeds produce the strongest flavor; white or yellow mustard, B. hirta; and Indian mustard, or mustard greens, B. junea. Mustard is native to southern Europe and southwestern Asia and has been cultivated since ancient times. (The mustard of the Bible, Mat. 13.31, 32 was probably black mustard, which grows to heights of 3.7 m/12 ft in Israel.) Mustards are cultivated today in temperate regions throughout the world.

     Whole mustard seeds are used as a pickling flavoring and to add pungency to many cooked foods. Powdered dry mustard is a common kitchen spice. Its sharp, hot flavor develops when the powder is moistened, and the resulting paste must be used immediately. Prepared mustard is a mixture of powdered mustard with salt, spices, and lemon juice, with wine or vinegar to preserve the mustard’s pungency. Mustard oil is used medicinally as an ingredient of liniments, stomach stimulants, and emetics.

     **********************************************************************

     Regarding whether Jesus really spent three days and three nights in the tomb:

     http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/37/

     ( Chuck Missler )
     Q: A question about Good Friday:
     “How can there be three days and three nights between Friday and Sunday?”

     [edited - article was removed, check the link - edited]

     This article was originally published in the
     April 1995 Personal Update NewsJournal.

     *******************************************************************************

     I would also like to point out that a Jewish day begins at sundown of the day before, according to our way of thinking.
     “and the evening and morning were the first day …”

     Creation CD: I would also like to add that a Jewish day begins at sundown of the day before and ends at sundown (according to our way of thinking).
     Also just because a Pope declares the date of Jesus’ birth, the crucifixion, or the
     Resurrection doesn’t make it so. Neither can he by Papal authority decide the location of the manger, the read sea crossing, or anything else.

188. 

     fzindler

     Said this on December 14th, 2006 at 1:31pm:

     ---

     At the risk of being a bore as well as repetitious, I nevertheless am compelled to restate my genetic engineering Gedanken experiment. That is because the thought experiment highlights the fact thhat we now are on the threshold of understanding completely the purely material differences that are the cause of the supposedly spiritual differences between humans and apes. We are witnessing the complete and total triumph of materialism in biology and the complete defeat of dualism and vitalism. With the defeat of vitalism comes the defeat of supernaturalism in general and theology in particular.

     Because this thought needs to be persued first, I shall delay restatement of the Gedanken experiment problem until the end of this epistle.

     Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the ONLY differences demonstrable between humans and apes are physiological and are the result of the actions of perhaps several hundred genes. (For the sake of simplifying the argument and to make the arithmetic simple, I have assumed exactly 100 genes, but of course even though the exact number will certainly be different, it will not affect the argument.)

     Mel claims that “We are spiritual beings,” despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support this claim. “The Biblical truth is that little of what we truly are is contained in the physical makeup of our body,” he asserts — also with no scientific evidence. I fear this is merely theologically wishful thinking.

     I devoted a substantial part of my academic career to the study of brain physiology and the evolution of nervous systems. Although everywhere I saw relationships between human and non-human nervous systems going back to jellyfish, nowhere did I ever see any evidence of a “spiritual difference” between the human brain and any other brain. Nor did I encounter any problems that for even a millisecond suggested I might need to seek a supernatural explanation. Never did I feel the need to abandon Occham’s Razor and “multiply assumptions beyond necessity.” Never did I feel the need to commit the logical fallacy so beloved of theistic thinkers, the informal fallacy known as “ignotum per ignotius” (trying to explain the unknown in terms of the even more unknown).

     Supernatural explanations for everything have steadily and inexorably been replaced by materialistic explanations. NEVER has science reverted to supernaturalism once a natural explanation has been found. Again and again, natural explanations have been improved and refined — once in a while, even completely abandoned — but never, never has science had to go back to a supernatural explanation.

     The “spiritual differences” of which Mel writes are the subject of a very lively field of neurophysiological research. I like to call it “neurotheology,” for it is elucidating the physiological basis for “religious experiences,” religious hallucinations, the sense of “communion” with “something greater than ourselves,” and the like. One laboratory now can induce at will “religious experiences” by focusing a powerful electromagnetic field on a particular part of the brain. They are able to induce religous experiences even in the brains of Atheists.

     Many years ago, when I was trying to discover the physiological basis for hypnosis in humans and other vertebrates, I had occasion to study hypnotic phenomena in religous rituals and practices. Years later, I published my thoughts on the relationship between hypmotizability and religiosity in an essay called “Religion, Hypnosis, and Music: An Evolutionary Perspective.” The essay is still available on the American Atheist Web-site , and I urge all who are seriously interested in the biological basis of religion read it even if they may remain unconvinced.

     More than I could have hoped in my wildest dreams when I wrote that essay, the scientific study of religion has progressed from the formulation of explanatory hypotheses to the experimental testing of these hypotheses. A completely natural explanation of the ’supernatural’ is being developed.

     The notion that there is anything spiritual or supernatural about human mental activities was of course dispelled long ago when people began to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD and it was realized that just a few molecules of the right kind can profoundly affect “spiritual” phenomena. Of course, anyone who has ever had a bit too much ethanol to drink knows how true that can be. (Another essay of mine, “Spirit, Soul, and Mind,” deals with this more coherently and also can be accessed on the Atheist Web-site.)

     ALL the evidence of biology in general and of neurophysiology in particular shows that there is no “Ghost in the machine,” and that all living things are organic machines — period.

     Finally, to get to the subject of genetic engineering and the differences between chimps and humans, the reproductive barrier between humans and sheep and humans and chimps is not germane to the question. Genetic engineering daily overcomes such barriers when it transplants the human insulin gene into bacteria to produce human insulin. Is crossing humans and bacteria an “abomination” if it helps to save human lives?

     When we clone the human growth hormone gene into sheep and engineer it with a lactalbumin promoter so that human growth hormone will be secreted into milk when a sheep lactates, is that an abomination? Is showing that there is no “vital” difference between bacteria, sheep, and humans an abomination?

     Do not think for a moment that the thought experiment I am considering is impossible. Absolutely no new technology is needed. We only need the soon-coming data about which genes to transplant. (Several months ago, the first significant genes were identified and reported. Significantly, these are genes expressed in the brain and include genes encoding short RNAs that have just been found to have a regulatory function in the brain — once again demonstrating the heuristic richness of evolutionary theory.)

     The facts of comparative genomics make a mockery of the conceit of “special creation” — the notion that humans are absolutely and totally unrelated to all other animals. Christians must face up to the problem of whether or not an organism that has had 51% of the genetic differences separating humans and chimps removed and replaced with human characters would have a soul and have to be baptized. If “chimpanzumans” are ever produced, will they have to be evangelized?

     While we’re at it, we also should decide if Neanderthals had souls and are now burning in hell because they never had a chance to “know Jesus.” After all, the preliminary reports of the Neanderthal genome I cited earlier indicate that the Neanderthals differed about as much from modern humans as would the hypothetical intermediate I’m trying to get everyone to think about.

     As soon as I get a chance again (I’m leaving tomorrow for a lecture out of state and won’t be back until next week), I will address the question about ATP synthase. Suffice it to say that the answer will involve the same sort of evidence that was involved in showing that “the” bacterial flagellum is not “irreduceably complex” but followed evolutionarily reasonable pathways of development.

     For reason,

     Frank R. Zindler

189. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 14th, 2006 at 8:10pm:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 2:02pm:
     “Samphire,

     You ask:

     Where did modern day whales come from if all the life that had breath in it was destroyed in the flood?

     Remember, my premise is that the universe is an open system even today. God did not loose His powers to create after the sixth day. Not every detail of the history of the universe is contained in the Bible. He could have simply spoken the whales into existence had he so desired.”

     That’s not what the bible says. So what was the purpose of the Ark other than to carry Noah and family around?

     “You ask:

     Where are the eroded continental sediments on the sea-floor and here did all that water disappear to?

     I could ask you the same thing about the sediment from the Grand Canyon”

     I asked first – where is it? This is your problem, not mine.

     “and the water did not disappear, it is in the oceans.”

     No, it isn’t. There isn’t enough room in the oceans – the waters covered the highest mountains”

     “Before the flood the water was stored under the ground”

     How in a near-spherical Earth? What pushed the water up?

     “and in the upper atmosphere, just as the Bible describes. Remember great destruction occurred, great destruction.”

     No evidence of it today. And what happened to the latent heat? Why wasn’t Noah boiled alive?

     How come Mount Ararat is of a later date than the fossil-bearing strata through which it protrudes? This is not a radiometric question but an observation of the physical geology. The mountain pushes up through the sedimentary layers like a pustule pushing up through the epidermis. The sedimentary strata is stressed and distorted vertically upwards.

     And you still haven’t answered my earlier queries.

190. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 3:56am:

     ---

     I would also like to point out that a Jewish day begins at sundown of the day before, according to our way of thinking.
     “and the evening and morning were the first day …”

     Creation CD: I would also like to add that a Jewish day begins at sundown of the day before and ends at sundown (according to our way of thinking).mfox
     Said this at 4:54pm:

     “Samphire,
     Unfortunately the church is full of sinners with a free will. Some, like your parents, were not just hearers of the Word but doers also. I look forward to meeting them in heaven. That is where they will spend eternity with no more suffering, no more pain, no more Alzheimer’s.
     As for the attic, if you are to understand the Biblical world view, then you must get the fact that we do not live in a place that is much like the original creation. It is a fallen world. Sin has entered in causing much destruction. One of the primary vehicles of this destruction is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law was not in place before Adam sinned.”

     With respect, Mel, that is utter nonsense. The whole of Genesis 1 and 2 is about movement and creeping and growing and the production of light and all manner of energy expenditure. If the 2nd Law did not exist the stars would not have shone and the River out of Eden might flow uphill. Your hypothesis is a necessary modern invention to support Creationism.

     God would not have given Adam food to eat if the 2nd law was of no effect as digestion could not take place. Nor would he have been warm-blooded.

     “Now we have disease, suffering, and death. The reason for these is that they are the general consequence of sin. You see I don’t mean to say that your parents Alzheimer’s was caused by any particular sin they committed but rather disease is a symptom of the fallen nature of this world. We, including your parents, deserve far worse than the suffering you witnessed them go through.”

     That, in terms of a personal loving God, I do not accept although my parents quite happily could. Whether they would have been able to if they had had knowledge aforethought I cannot say – I strongly suspect that they would. In my mother’s case her identical twin sister went through the same process some three years earlier and my mother was terrified that it would eventually happen to her to as, indeed, it did.

     “The GOOD NEWS is that the major consequence of sin, eternal death, is reversible by faith in Jesus Christ and through the Grace of the one true living God. You asked me on what point was Jesus strictly exact. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; none come to the Father accept through the Son. Your parents knew this and lived their lives in full expectation the promises of God would be fulfilled in Christ and His work on the cross. My prayer is that you too will come to the knowledge that through the Son you may have life and life to the full.”

     Good delusional stuff.

     “My point to Frank was that we are not to intentionally harm, damage, or otherwise distort the physical body we have been given. All the while we understand that this body is temporary, as we wait for our new and everlasting body. Any suffering that we go threw at present can’t be compared to the immeasurable joy that awaits us. Until then we count it all joy that we are considered worthy to suffer in bringing glory to the King.”

     I detect that you are back-tracking having no answer to Frank’s rationality. Throughout the ages, the history of Christianity is that it has had to be dragged by humanism into the modern age. The Pope has still not quite found it possible to allow the wearing of condoms to prevent the scourge of Aids. Rather that millions die and many more millions orphaned than that Christianity’s puritanical view of sex should be diluted. Islam has been even more resistant to change to the great disadvantage of the Arab nations.

     Kind regards

     Samphire

191. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 4:12am:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 3:47pm:

     “Samphire,
     You wrote:
“What have c14 levels got to do with the Flood?”

     Understand the flood was not just a flood. It was a cataclysmic event that changed drastically all of the physical systems on the earth. Before the flood a strong magnetic field coupled with the waters above, some sort of water canopy, protected the earth from any harmful radiation. This would have prevented the formation of 14C as it is produced today and since for that matter.”

     Ignorant conjecture and not reflected in the magnetic record. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

     “Get out of your head the simple story of hard rain for forty days and then all the water washing away. Great storehouses of water were released from below in what must have been the total destruction of vast portions of the surface of the planet. The highest peaks pre-flood would be dwarfted by today’s standards. The world was a very different place pre-flood.”

     It surely must have been. Are you suggesting that the continents were floating on a sea of water? Where is the geological evidence? It must be there as the event is so recent – more recent indeed than the construction of the pyramids. There is no evidence in Egypt that the world was much different to how it is today.

     Samphire

192. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 2:23pm:

     ---

     Frank,

     That we are spiritual beings is more than a wish; it is a hope. It is in fact our only hope (2nd law of thermodynamics). If I agreed with your stated premise of the universe as a closed system, then I would be forced to agree with you about a looming victory for materialism. Since you have no scientific evidence to support the closed universe, I reject everything you could possibly say based on that premise.

     If the previous sounds harsh, understand, that is exactly what you are saying to me with respect to my open system premise. Why do you not allow, even for the sake of argument, the possibility of an open universe?

     You wrote:

     “Never did I feel the need to commit the logical fallacy so beloved of theistic thinkers, the informal fallacy known as “ignotum per ignotius” (trying to explain the unknown in terms of the even more unknown).”

     To avoid being accused of creating straw men, let me ask: Do you, as I have read elsewhere from other materialists, claim the fabric of existence (living and non-living) is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. Most specifically, do mutations generally occur via sub-molecular events perpetrated in an unpredictable way? So that these are not loaded questions, exactly what role do you see “chance” playing in the fabric of existence?

     You wrote:

     “— but never, never has science had to go back to a supernatural explanation.”

     The game isn’t over yet.

     You wrote:

     “One laboratory now can induce at will “religious experiences” by focusing a powerful electromagnetic field on a particular part of the brain. They are able to induce religious experiences even in the brains of Atheists.”

     A religious experience is one thing; a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ is another. Also, if a person came to Christ during a lab experiment, praise God; God can do the same by rubbing mud on a person’s eye just as easily.

     You wrote:

     “Of course, anyone who has ever had a bit too much ethanol to drink knows how true that can be.”

     In Ephesians we read:

     “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”

     You wrote:

     “ALL the evidence of biology in general and of neurophysiology in particular shows that there is no “Ghost in the machine,” and that all living things are organic machines — period.”

     But you ignore my question of the murderer. You suppose he is an organic machine and based on that organic machinery he must act. If his machinery tells him to murder, then there is truly no wrong done. How should we then respond to his act? There are three options. 1) Kill him before he kills us. Fair enough under your moral code. 2) Let him alone for punishment is only an abstraction due to some chemical imbalance in the brains of people who put on long black robes and swing a wooden hammer. 3) Hook him up to some electromagnetic field and reconfigure his machinery to operate “morally” what ever that is because we don’t have any rules for what is right or wrong because right or wrong is relative to the situation and the individual because circumstance dictates the proper course to prolong existence and that is the only thing that matters because we want to get as many of our genes in the gene pool as we can so our offspring will have our characteristics because it is important to impose our traits on future generations of our species or other species we might evolve into because when the heat death finally comes and all life is finished forever we want our genes to be there to see it and that is a worthwhile goal. Yes Frank, I know that is a run on sentence. My father was an English teacher for 30 years. I will see him in heaven someday and do you know what he will say about that sentence? Nothing! We will be too busy praising the one true living God in fellowship with one another we won’t even care.

     You wrote:

     “Is crossing humans and bacteria an “abomination” if it helps to save human lives?”

     Possibly. Saving years of earthly existence is not the ultimate goal at all costs. There will always be suffering and death until the last day. What I said is a clear abomination is the goal of engineering a chimp from a human. Don’t do it. DON’T!

     You wrote:

     “Do not think for a moment that the thought experiment I am considering is impossible.”

     I never said it was impossible to get the machinery correct. The spirit is another thing but you don’t believe is spirits. Read the following from Romans 1: 28 – 32:

     28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

     You wrote:

     “If “chimpanzumans” are ever produced, will they have to be evangelized?”

     I highly doubt God would honor your insulting creation with a spirit; no evangelizing required and no dilemma for the Christian. Don’t do it Frank.

     From Isaiah 65: 2

     All day long I have held out my hands
     to an obstinate people,
     who walk in ways not good,
     pursuing their own imaginations-

     -Mel

193. 

     spartanrider

     Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 3:32pm:

     ---

     Why did God allow this? That’s the wrong question Brother Hovind. Instead of delving into the mind of God for the answers you should examine your own mind because that’s were the answers lay. Prison time is hard enough to do day to day without your sense of matyrdom.
     I have followed you and several like minded individual’s careers for many years. You were always my favorite Brother Hovind. If I was feeling down or getting the blues I always knew you would be there with something new that would bring a smile to face or many times double me up with laughter. I figure I owe you something. You have acomplished something that I would have considered impossible. You have managed to parlay a belief in a story to possibly over 200 years in a penitentiary. That Brother Hovind is amazing. God did not do this Brother, you did. For many years I thought you were a con. Your earlier troubles with the law I figured were a cost of doing business. Reciting your trials and tribulations plays well with a certain set of folks. Well I now know that I was wrong. Brother there is no way your a con, but a true believer. And there in lies your problem. If you were a con you would have sense enough to mitigate your sentence. But,as a true believer you would rather go down in flames.You started out as a true believer in certain creation stories. That Brother is certainly your right as an American. That you made a decent living off the propagation your ideas is testimony to the greatness of the American way.You also made a raft of enemies.You did not handle them well.Stuck in the Old Testament tradition of confronting unbelievers rather than the New Testament way of forgiveness.Your enemies were legion,their spirits cruel.Their derision was unrelenting.You did not survive this intact.You had taken on all the sciences of every major university on the planet.I think scripture once said something about girding one’s loins for battle.That may work for battle,but you were on a kamakazi mission.Your enemies attacked your ideas,your education and a few of them your manhood.But you were ready and paid them back in kind.You became more vicious as the years went by.Attacked by the science establishment that belittled you and your beliefs you did not back off.Instead you took on more enemies.Anybody that graduated from an acreditted university was now your enemy. Yale law,Harvard medicine,they were all fools.I take legal advice from Irwin Schiff and tax advice from Glen Stoll.Brother I am sure that there are plenty of full service law firms in the Pensacola area you could have used.Your hate had become overwhelming by this time and I doubt you could be in the same room with them.In the end you were betrayed by your own people.They must have figured if they had to pay so did you.I am an old line agnostic and I wouldn’t have turned you in even for a share of the money.If you will allow brother I will offer a few words of advice.Number one is listen to your legal counsel.Number two is jail house conversions are a dime a dozen.Also don’t come on as a true believer,because you are liable to find a true believer of another sort. When inmates ask tell them about your ministry,how profitable it was,the places you travelled to,the people you talked to,and in the end your losing battle with the IRS. They will be impressed.I know I am.And finally your in great company.It took the IRS to bring down Brother Kent Hovind and Brother Alfonso Capone.

194. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 10:34am:

     ---

     Samphire,

     You wrote:

     “That’s not what the bible says. So what was the purpose of the Ark other than to carry Noah and family around?”

     As you know, the primary purpose of the Ark was to keep the seed, genes if you will, (the physical machinery) of man and all flesh on the face of the earth that had the breath of life in it. After all, that was the promise made – Eve the mother of all the living. It was also to show that even the most righteous human blood line will in the end be lost without the blood of Christ.

     We read Genesis 7: 3 and 8: 17:

     3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

     17Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

     The fate of fish and even of whales is not referred to specifically. The species under the water, while devastated I am sure, could have survived the event. Or they could have been repopulated as I have stated before. Not every detail of history is included. As we read in John 21: 25,

     25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

     You wrote:

     “I asked first – where is it? This is your problem, not mine.”

     I suppose you are right. This event was so large and disruptive that it is difficult – dare I say impossible – to figure out exactly what happened. Much like with Humpty Dumpty, I should say, we are having some difficulty putting all the pieces back together again. A major stumbling block is undoubtedly that neither all of the king’s horses nor all of the king’s men are willing to work on the problem. But enough excuses. I will give the best effort to explain sediments; this from the perspective of a lowly pure mathematician.

     Given I don’t know what physical event, if any (open system), God used to touch off the flood; let’s suppose it was a great ice ball from space. I use this one because you all seem to get such a big kick out of it; like it is so impossible. Have you looked at the moon on a clear night? What sorts of things should we find?

     Well since it was only about four thousand years ago we might have some ice left. Got it. We might find evidence that regions of the globe were covered in ice in time past. Got it. Since it is so cold in space and that is where the ball quickly came from, we might find evidence that animals were frozen quickly, like that demonstration of a rose dipped into liquid nitrogen? God it.

     There was most likely a great impact when the ball or balls hit the surface of the earth. Impact craters? Got ‘em. Could the impact, from at least one large ice ball, have been enough to crack the earth’s crust into plates? We got plates. Would these impacts together with the cracks upset the pressure equilibriums pre-existing in the earth’s geologic dynamic? Since it happened only about 4000 years ago we should still have pressure imbalance. Got it. The plates should still be moving. Got it. The earth should still have a wobble. Got it. There should be evidence of massive upheavals in the crust. Got it. There should be evidence of massive breaches in temporary sedimentary dams. Grand Canyon, got it. If the pre-flood world was lush with vegetation from pole to pole as it would have been in a perfect world then there should be both scattered remains of this all over the globe and huge grave yards of animals and compressed organic material. Got ’em all.

     At the end of the day the mineral and organic matter deposited by water, air, and ice that exists today on earth can be modeled, and I stress the word can, from the events described in Genesis especially under the premise of an open universe but even under the assumption of a closed universe.

     For Frank, on the other hand, to explain the spiritual differences between a human and a chimp by material means alone, now that would take a miracle.

     You wrote:

     “No, it isn’t. There isn’t enough room in the oceans – the waters covered the highest mountains”

     You assume the mountains that are there now, were there when the flood occurred, how presumptuous of you.

     You wrote:

     “How in a near-spherical Earth? What pushed the water up?”

     Pressure, intense pressure.

     You wrote:

     “No evidence of it today. And what happened to the latent heat? Why wasn’t Noah boiled alive?”

     What are you talking about? Even your theories say that great changes have occurred over the face of the earth; destruction or evolution, it becomes semantics for the objective observer.

     Yes, well it is possible Noah and his family needed a miracle here so as not to boil. The universe is open and therefore God is free to intercede from the outside in and protect the Ark in ways a closed universe is at a loss to explain, just the facts of physics. Also, from my calculations the Ark only had enough Euclidian space for 38,000 kinds. Another miracle? Probably, but not necessarily. The modern theory of quantum loop gravity suggests the geometry of space time is not uniform and can very even from point to point. Check it out.

     You wrote:

     “How come Mount Ararat is of a later date than the fossil-bearing strata through which it protrudes? This is not a radiometric question but an observation of the physical geology. The mountain pushes up through the sedimentary layers like a pustule pushing up through the epidermis. The sedimentary strata is stressed and distorted vertically upwards.”

     Yes, you have it now, a dramatic consequence of the dynamic forces unleashed during the catastrophe of the flood.

     You wrote:

     “And you still haven’t answered my earlier queries.”

     My apologies. It could be that the posting order of these missives is not consistent with the flow of the discussion. A similar confusion can creep in concerning the three creation accounts contained in scripture. I will review your posts and get back to you as I wait for Frank to answer a few of my stickier questions.

     -Mel

195. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 7:46am:

     ---

     Samphire,

     You have a particular wit and I enjoy your posts as long as we keep our humor in the café and out of the bar, if you know what I mean.

     Thank you for your compliments of the season and a Merry Christmas to you as well.

     You wrote [Dec. 11 5: 28 pm on another thread]:
     “OK, near the Big Bang speeds approached the speed of light. But how close?”

     There exist various models with varying numbers, take your pick. I would choose speeds very near for longer periods of time because the resulting model fits my premise. You would probably choose speeds not so close and for shorter lengths of time because that would fit your premise. The models don’t care; the math works either way.

     You wrote:

     “However, if you have read “A Brief History of Time” you will remember there is a graph of time measured along the x-axis (I do not have the book to hand so cannot give you a page reference) which mirrors much of what you have to say. In fact, it does not end in a singularity, a point which Prof Hawkins seems to have missed (or perhaps it was me so I apologize with great humility in advance), but is a smooth curve about the origin. In other words, perhaps time never commenced – it always existed.”

     I have read it and agree with your characterization of the Hawkins perspective. In his book “The Universe in a Nutshell” he speaks of imaginary time, a mathematical construct needed to avoid the beginning implied by the singularity. He surely does not want there to have been a beginning. I do not have any problem with him espousing his opinion concerning the big bang or any other topic because he is clear in his assumptions. He does not try to hide them nor overstate his position. Not having the book in hand I will quote him from memory: “I can tell you nothing about reality; I can only give you the best mathematical model to describe our observations.” I am sure he would agree that “best model” would be scientifically debatable in most cases.

     You wrote:
     “Biblical “days” have nothing to do with the discussion in so far as they represent a time measurement not equal to Earth time. A day can only be defined after the event of the Earth being created as a body circulating a previously created Sun. To try to measure time in terms of “days” before the Earth/Sun relationship commenced is meaningless.
     I do not understand what you mean by “formation ages”. Please explain.”

     I am right there with you. It seems very peculiar at first glance that God would state time in days before days were created. I agree that this could imply that the creation of the universe took longer than six literal 24 hour time intervals. How long was the “formation age” of the universe? [I would loosely define formation age as the length of time it took the universe to be formed into a configuration comparable to what we see now.] The answer is, and always will be, we do not know. We were not there. We can’t go back in time. The question is: Was anyone there during creation? Yes. God was there. He says it took six days, morning and evening for each. I have no grounds to say that this description is not 100% accurate. Yet, at the same time, I allow the possibility that the description is figurative.
     What is obvious from Genesis is that God wanted to relate the time it took for his creation work in a way that would fit our frame of reference. Perhaps, as I walk and talk with Him in His Kingdom when it comes and if it is still of any importance to me, I will ask God exactly what He meant by six days. For now, I am content in taking Him at his Word.

     You wrote:
     “
     ‘It is also germane to note that Biblical descriptions of the formation of the universe are consistent with the phenomenon of time dilation.’

     Chapter and verse, please?”

     This is a fair question. The answer will have to wait till next post.

     -Mel

196. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 12:24pm:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 10:34am:

     “The fate of fish and even of whales is not referred to specifically. The species under the water, while devastated I am sure, could have survived the event. Or they could have been repopulated as I have stated before”

     Swimming in thick muddy ooze for the best part of a year with nothing to eat?

     “Given I don’t know what physical event, if any (open system), God used to touch off the flood; let’s suppose it was a great ice ball from space. I use this one because you all seem to get such a big kick out of it; like it is so impossible. Have you looked at the moon on a clear night? What sorts of things should we find?”

     We don’t get a kick out of the alleged ice-ball idea – it is the creation of the creationists.

     “Well since it was only about four thousand years ago we might have some ice left. Got it. We might find evidence that regions of the globe were covered in ice in time past. Got it.”
     How does that show evidence of the iceball? There is evidence that there have been a number of ice-ages in the history of the world – not just one.

     “Since it is so cold in space and that is where the ball quickly came from, we might find evidence that animals were frozen quickly, like that demonstration of a rose dipped into liquid nitrogen? God it.”

     A paleantological example, please.

     “There was most likely a great impact when the ball or balls hit the surface of the earth. Impact craters? Got ‘em.”

     To erode all that rock into the observed sedimentary layers presently covering the Earth’s surface would take an awful lot of water. Allowing for, say an average depth of water of 2 miles, an iceball of the same density as liquid water (it could be more or less dense) would have to be about 700 miles in diameter (my back-of-a-cigarette-packet calculation). I’m not sure Noah and his wife would survive a hit by an object that size. By comparison, the Hale-Bopp comet was only 25 miles in diameter.

     “Could the impact, from at least one large ice ball, have been enough to crack the earth’s crust into plates? We got plates.”

     The plates are not “cracked” in the way you suggest. Hit a boiled egg with a spoon and the resultant “plates” do not move about the surface of the egg.

     “Would these impacts together with the cracks upset the pressure equilibriums pre-existing in the earth’s geologic dynamic? Since it happened only about 4000 years ago we should still have pressure imbalance. Got it.”

     These imbalances are not caused as a result of being hit by a comet but because of the Earth’s underlying structure.

     “The plates should still be moving. Got it.”

     Yes, but in all sorts of directions as they do today? Not what one would expect from being hit by a comet.

     “The earth should still have a wobble. Got it.”

     It will take a pure mathematician to calculate the mass of the body which would be necessary to cause the size of the present wobble and its point of impact. My back-of-a-cigarette-packet isn’t clever enough by a long way.

     “There should be evidence of massive upheavals in the crust. Got it.”

     But not arising from a single impact point. The plates are not moving today as a result of their own inertia caused by being hit by an ice-ball but because the Hot underlying asthenospheric mantle rises to the surface and spreads laterally, transporting oceans and continents as on a slow conveyor belt.

     “There should be evidence of massive breaches in temporary sedimentary dams. Grand Canyon, got it.”

     No, it hasn’t. Have you seen how steep the sides of the canyon are in places? How could wet mud (and wind-blown desert sand) be deposited during a single flood and maintain its stability without collapsing into the canyon. The first older layers have then to be eroded in turn before the younger layers are deposited on top; difficult to do during a flood. It takes a long time for such a thickness of sediment to consolidate, drain down, and be metamorphosed into rock. And after all that has been done you need to overlay the whole caboodle in lava You need an old Earth as much as evolutionists do.

     “If the pre-flood world was lush with vegetation from pole to pole as it would have been in a perfect world then there should be both scattered remains of this all over the globe and huge grave yards of animals and compressed organic material. Got ’em all.”

     Yep – in Africa there is a pile of bones of around 800 million large animals – all alive at the same time and all in one small area. KH mentions them in his seminars. It must have been very crowded round there immediately before the Flood. Still, it is only one more unbelievable fact you have to swallow.

     “At the end of the day the mineral and organic matter deposited by water, air, and ice that exists today on earth can be modeled, and I stress the word can, from the events described in Genesis especially under the premise of an open universe but even under the assumption of a closed universe.”

     I’d like to see you try to model, say, the North Dakota Geologic Column. Simple question – how do you get mud cracks, animal burrows, windblown sand, multi-layered coal deposits, evaporitic layers, and 1300 feet of limestone and much, much, much more all laid down under water inside a year?

     “You assume the mountains that are there now, were there when the flood occurred, how presumptuous of you.”

     We only need a couple of mountains, Mount Ararat and another – that makes “mountains”. Mount Ararat is over 3 miles high. Only problem with using Mount Ararat is that it appears to have been formed after the Flood but that is your problem rather than mine. Clearly there were mountains at the time of the Flood because the Bible mentions them and the Bible differentiates between “mountains” and “hills”.

     Immediately after the Flood there does not appear to have been a shortage of mountains so not only would Noah have had to put up with the stresses and strains of long-distance cruising while looking after the biggest zoo in the world but also withstand some tedious vulcanism as well.

     “You wrote: “How in a near-spherical Earth? What pushed the water up?”” “Pressure, intense pressure.”

     From what? Water is pretty well incompressible. Are you suggesting the the surface crust was floating on water? If the land was floating where’s the pressure? Rock is good in compression but I wouldn’t like to use it to make mountaineering ropes. How does a fountain under the sea work when the driving mechanism is caused by the overlying weight of sea-water? I think that you also need to employ a few Free-Energy Machines to power the fountains.

     “You wrote: “No evidence of it today. And what happened to the latent heat? Why wasn’t Noah boiled alive?” What are you talking about? Even your theories say that great changes have occurred over the face of the earth; destruction or evolution, it becomes semantics for the objective observer.”

     If the flood water came from rain it would release the latent heat of evaporation. If it came from the fountains of the deep then the water would have been very hot as geysers are today. If it came from the comet then Noah would have frozen to death. Perhaps it came from all three sources and thus, all carefully mixed, kept a nice Mediterranean climate.

     “Yes, well it is possible Noah and his family needed a miracle here so as not to boil.”

     Yet another miracle! Wouldn’t it have been easier for God to evolve a nasty wind-blown virus so that we then wouldn’t have all these impossible-to-believe miracles?

     “The universe is open and therefore God is free to intercede from the outside in and protect the Ark in ways a closed universe is at a loss to explain, just the facts of physics.”

     I don’t understand what you mean by an “open universe”. Please could you direct me to a source of explanation.

     “Also, from my calculations the Ark only had enough Euclidian space for 38,000 kinds. Another miracle? Probably, but not necessarily. The modern theory of quantum loop gravity suggests the geometry of space time is not uniform and can very even from point to point. Check it out.”

     I doubt that the theory suggests that an area of space can be just precisely Ark-sized for an exact period of time of about a couple of years. In any event, I bet that theory would not help you because the geometry of all beings within that space would be equally affected. A bigger local space – bigger animals. (In writing this I am not suggesting that I understand any part of the quantum loop gravity theory)

     “You wrote: “How come Mount Ararat is of a later date than the fossil-bearing strata through which it protrudes? This is not a radiometric question but an observation of the physical geology. The mountain pushes up through the sedimentary layers like a pustule pushing up through the epidermis. The sedimentary strata is stressed and distorted vertically upwards.” Yes, you have it now, a dramatic consequence of the dynamic forces unleashed during the catastrophe of the flood.”

     I think that you miss the point. The mountain could not have arisen until the sedimentary layers had been layed down for some time. The mountain did not push itself up through mud but rock. Even if it arose out of the waters of the Flood how long do you think it would take for a three-mile-high volcanic mountain to cool down sufficiently to allow Noah and his menagerie to climb down the mountain? Yes – I know that some people even today think that walking on hot coals requires the assistance of the supernatural.

     “You wrote: “And you still haven’t answered my earlier queries.” My apologies. It could be that the posting order of these missives is not consistent with the flow of the discussion. A similar confusion can creep in concerning the three creation accounts contained in scripture. I will review your posts and get back to you as I wait for Frank to answer a few of my stickier questions.”

     Thanks, Mel. I shall look forward to it.

     Samphire

197. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 1:04pm:

     ---

     mfox
     Said this at 7:46am:

     “Samphire,
     You have a particular wit and I enjoy your posts as long as we keep our humor in the café and out of the bar, if you know what I mean.”

     No – I am not sure I do. A horse walks into a bar. “Hello”, says the barman, “Why the long face?”

     “You wrote [Dec. 11 5: 28 pm on another thread]: “OK, near the Big Bang speeds approached the speed of light. But how close?” There exist various models with varying numbers, take your pick. I would choose speeds very near for longer periods of time because the resulting model fits my premise. You would probably choose speeds not so close and for shorter lengths of time because that would fit your premise. The models don’t care; the math works either way.”

     I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute.

     “You wrote: “However, if you have read “A Brief History of Time” you will remember there is a graph of time measured along the x-axis (I do not have the book to hand so cannot give you a page reference) which mirrors much of what you have to say. In fact, it does not end in a singularity, a point which Prof Hawkins seems to have missed (or perhaps it was me so I apologize with great humility in advance), but is a smooth curve about the origin. In other words, perhaps time never commenced – it always existed.” I have read it and agree with your characterization of the Hawkins perspective. In his book “The Universe in a Nutshell” he speaks of imaginary time, a mathematical construct needed to avoid the beginning implied by the singularity. He surely does not want there to have been a beginning. I do not have any problem with him espousing his opinion concerning the big bang or any other topic because he is clear in his assumptions. He does not try to hide them nor overstate his position. Not having the book in hand I will quote him from memory: “I can tell you nothing about reality; I can only give you the best mathematical model to describe our observations.” I am sure he would agree that “best model” would be scientifically debatable in most cases.”

     Absolutely. Even he has been known to evolve his understanding.

     “You wrote: “Biblical “days” have nothing to do with the discussion in so far as they represent a time measurement not equal to Earth time. A day can only be defined after the event of the Earth being created as a body circulating a previously created Sun. To try to measure time in terms of “days” before the Earth/Sun relationship commenced is meaningless. I do not understand what you mean by “formation ages”. Please explain.” I am right there with you. It seems very peculiar at first glance that God would state time in days before days were created. I agree that this could imply that the creation of the universe took longer than six literal 24 hour time intervals. How long was the “formation age” of the universe? [I would loosely define formation age as the length of time it took the universe to be formed into a configuration comparable to what we see now.] The answer is, and always will be, we do not know. We were not there. We can’t go back in time. The question is: Was anyone there during creation? Yes. God was there. He says it took six days, morning and evening for each. I have no grounds to say that this description is not 100% accurate. Yet, at the same time, I allow the possibility that the description is figurative.”

     So you would allow an ancient Universe?

     “What is obvious from Genesis is that God wanted to relate the time it took for his creation work in a way that would fit our frame of reference. ”

     Mr.KH might not agree with you.

     “Perhaps, as I walk and talk with Him in His Kingdom when it comes and if it is still of any importance to me, I will ask God exactly what He meant by six days. For now, I am content in taking Him at his Word.”

     As you will have left your brain behind here on Earth what will you use for a memory? It has always worried me that, without my memory, I won’t be able to defend myself against allegations that I have been a pretty terrible fellow here on Earth. I might even be accused of being the Pope – with no way of refuting such a terrible charge. You can’t let me have OJ’s lawyers’ telephone numbers, can you?

     Kind regards

     Samphire

198. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 8:43am:

     ---

     Samphire,

     You wrote:
     “I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute.”

     Your comparison here of a supernova to the beginnings of the universe is as absurd as your comparisons of an egg to the earth. The supernova is about a tail end in the life of a star existing in a universe condemned to death by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the big bang is supposed to be about the inception of all there is in the physical world.

     You wrote:
     “So you would allow an ancient Universe?”

     What I allow is insignificant. From the perspective of science alone, one must allow for an ancient Universe because models can be constructed for it given present data. It is my opinion these models are not consistent with the real course of history. This opinion is based on premise. My premise is that God spoke literal truth when he said the universe was created in six days. Producing a mathematical model for an ancient universe is not enough to show my premise to be false. Therefore, I continue forth from the a priori six day model. If God Himself tells me otherwise I will scrap the six day model in favor of what ever He tells me.

     When you say, “we have no dispute”, do you allow, as by the the rules of science you should, for a young earth? That is, do you concede a universe as young as 6000 years is a physical possibility? If not, then we most certainly have a dispute.

     You wrote: [my insert]
     “Absolutely. Even he [Hawking] has been known to evolve his understanding.”

     Do you agree with Hawking with respect to the relationship between the maths and reality? He is clearly expressing his premise that our best hope for understanding reality is through the maths. At the same time, his training is telling him the maths have no real physical connection to reality. Math is axiomatic and not based on experience. Every single conclusion is based on logical reason connected to arbitrary axioms and is self sufficient or removed from all empirical data. The whole lot is a priori. This is good because it adds objectivity. It is also bad because its “fit” could be completely superficial and only tangent to reality.

     If the maths only give us a tangent of reality then all of science amounts to chasing shadows of reality. We are back in Plato’s cave. It was in graduate school I first came to the realization that math is a dim view of reality. I for one want more than a dim view. This desire coupled with the supernova of my own self righteousness during the same period and the revelation by the Holy Spirit of God of His power and love made known to all men in the person of His Son Jesus Christ, broke my hardened heart. I went to my knees before almighty God, confessed my sins and asked Him to forgive and rescue me. He did! The person described in the Bible, Jesus Christ, is the living God. He is real and He is reality. I have put all of my eggs, cracked as they were, in His basket. He literally saved me from death. So, laugh all you like at my ridiculous [to you] models and mock Him as my “crutch” but know He is more than a crutch to me, He is my life.

     You can even take a debate position and concede nothing knowing in your heart the models I will continue to present to you are scientifically possible even when they are highly unlikely. But God can provide a way when there seems to be no way. Don’t be too hard on my unlikely models though. The initial conditions for a big bang that produces this universe are astronomically unlikely. What is more, once the universe is set, life in it is a scientific anomaly. It does not fit in.

     I would request as we continue with these discussions that you would concede, given the open universe premise, that my conclusions are indeed physically possible before you expound on how silly this open system appears to you. Understand that your closed system appears to me equally silly. We could limit our exchange to sarcastic comments meant to belittle the opposing view but my time is too valuable for this. If you don’t like the open system, then attach it. Show me that the closed universe is the only option.

     I must take a few days, not to give a lecture or eat cheese but, to grade some papers and celebrate the imminent coming of the King. I look forward to addressing all of your objections and will rejoin this discussion next week.
     -Mel

199. 

     Samphire

     Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 4:07am:

     ---

     mfox said this at 8:43am: “Samphire, You wrote “I don’t think so. My example of SN1987A is independent of the absolute speed of light. Effectively, it is a matter of pure maths and therefore in your particular specialist realm. But later in this post you seem to be admitting that it is not your belief that creation took six literal Earth days so, unfortunately, we have no dispute.” Your comparison here of a supernova to the beginnings of the universe is as absurd as your comparisons of an egg to the earth. The supernova is about a tail end in the life of a star existing in a universe condemned to death by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the big bang is supposed to be about the inception of all there is in the physical world.”

     With respect, mel, you miss the point. This has nothing to do with the beginnings of the Universe but with the fact that through simple observation, angular measurement and the application of schoolboy geometry it can be shown that the supernova occurred 168,000 years ago thus ruling out YEC.

     “When you say, “we have no dispute”, do you allow, as by the the rules of science you should, for a young earth? That is, do you concede a universe as young as 6000 years is a physical possibility? If not, then we most certainly have a dispute.”

     It was 6,000 years old a one point in time.

     “Do you agree with Hawking with respect to the relationship between the maths and reality? He is clearly expressing his premise that our best hope for understanding reality is through the maths. At the same time, his training is telling him the maths have no real physical connection to reality. Math is axiomatic and not based on experience. Every single conclusion is based on logical reason connected to arbitrary axioms and is self sufficient or removed from all empirical data. The whole lot is a priori. This is good because it adds objectivity. It is also bad because its “fit” could be completely superficial and only tangent to reality.”

     I agree to a great extent but, in the case of cosmology, the maths has to reflect the observations.

     “So, laugh all you like at my ridiculous [to you] models and mock Him as my “crutch” but know He is more than a crutch to me, He is my life.”

     Why do you accuse me of laughing; you mentioned “crutch”, not me? To a large proportion of humanity, their particular god is there life. That is their particular reality – it is not mine.

     “You can even take a debate position and concede nothing knowing in your heart the models I will continue to present to you are scientifically possible even when they are highly unlikely.”

     You haven’t given me one yet.

     ‘But God can provide a way when there seems to be no way. Don’t be too hard on my unlikely models though. The initial conditions for a big bang that produces this universe are astronomically unlikely. What is more, once the universe is set, life in it is a scientific anomaly. It does not fit in.”

     Well, apparently you are wrong on that last one. Unless, of course, we don’t actually exist.

     “I would request as we continue with these discussions that you would concede, given the open universe premise, that my conclusions are indeed physically possible before you expound on how silly this open system appears to you. Understand that your closed system appears to me equally silly. We could limit our exchange to sarcastic comments meant to belittle the opposing view but my time is too valuable for this. If you don’t like the open system, then attach it. Show me that the closed universe is the only option.”

     I don’t that I have been sarcastic in this conversation. I have asked you what you mean by an open system but you have not yet filled me in on it so I cannot comment on the idea.

     “I must take a few days, not to give a lecture or eat cheese but, to grade some papers and celebrate the imminent coming of the King. I look forward to addressing all of your objections and will rejoin this discussion next week.”

     A merry Christmas to you, mel,

     Samphire

      P.S. Can you actually sensibly celebrate something which hasn’t happened yet?

200. 

     jimmy

     Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 1:10pm:

     ---

     hey guys, lets leave this site to encouraging Dr. Hovind and his supporters. I really aprecciate his ministry, and pray for him and his family, and I think the purpose of this blog is to encourage the ministry down there. If any of you want to debate some of the crazy issues above, you’re welcome to visit my blog at hovindtrials.blogspot.com and I’ll take you on at any issue you want to adress. But let’s leave this to its original pupose.

201. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 21st, 2006 at 7:25am:

     ---

     Jimmy,

     This is the Areopagus today. Due to the circumstances surrounding this ministry here is where they are gathering. Kent sounds encouraged by the bold defense of God’s word that is offered here. Do you speak for him? If so, I would be happy to oblige you.

     -Mel

202. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 23rd, 2006 at 5:02pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… God saw all that he had made and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning on the sixth day.”

     I do not pretend to know anything of before the beginning beside the fact that God was there. We are faced with the fact that objects exist in space at a distance from earth too great to allow the light from them to reach us, under existing circumstances, in a period of 6,000 years. If one accepts the Biblical account as historically accurate, then there must be another explanation.

     In place of the silly Big Bang story I submit the Super Stretch story.

     About 6,000 years ago, God took the formless, empty darkness of the deep “waters” and stretched it out into the expanse we now know as our universe. The stretch was completed with an average velocity of approximately 2.9999999999 x 10^8 m/s. The cause of this action was not from within but from without. You see, right from the start our universe has been an open system.

     What do I mean by an open system? A system where objects and energy may leave or enter the system is an open system. It is important to note that forces from outside the system could also affect the system. Since these forces are not part of the physical system in question, then it is reasonable that they may not be detectable within the system. However, their effects would be observable.

     Consider two observers during the Super Stretch: Observer (1) who is stationary and outside the universe and Observer (2) moving as part of the stretching universe. According to Einstein in “The Electordynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), the elapsed time of the stretch, t(1) for Observer (1) and t(2) for Observer (2), will be different. The two are related in the following way:

     t(1) = t(2)/(1 – v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

     It can be shown, using only school boy algebra, that the velocity, ‘v’ of the moving Observer (2), is given as:

     v = (c^2(1-(t(2)/t(1))^2))^(1/2)

     If we accept the big bang estimate of t(1) = 14,000,000,000 years and the creation account of t(2) = 6/365 years, then by simple substitution we have:

     v = (c^2 – 1.24078653510^-7)^(1/2)

     And thus we have our stretch velocity estimate of:

     v  2.9999999999  10^8 m/s

     Note that the speed of light, c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s , has been found experimentally to be independent of the relative speeds of observers. Also, experiments with muons confirm the phenomenon of time dilation.

     Therefore, given the open system, a stretch velocity of very near the speed of light, and a supernatural (outside the system) force, which is the hand of God, then the formation of the entire universe could have taken as little as six days. This would have been six days as counted by someone who was present in the universe as the stretch took place i.e. Observer (2).

     Now before you go off and tell me that we have never observed any aspect of the Super Stretch and therefore it is not scientific, let me remind you that we have never observed a closed system, never observed an ideal gas, never observed a circle, and never observed macroevolution, yet all of these concepts are considered scientific.

     Now to your example, SN1987A, remember Observer (1])? Since earth is supposed to be 168,000 light years from Tarantula Nebula, then I suppose on (1)’s clock it took 168,000 years for the electromagnetic waves to reach earth. On the other arm, so to speak, of the neutrinos on the fringe of the energy wave perhaps the clock might tell us Tarantula to earth in no time at all. We would need another of Einstein’s formulas, relativistic addition of velocities, to tell us the travel time according to an observer on earth. My guess, it would be less than 6,000 years but more than zero.

     Intuitively we all side with Newton when he says “time is absolute.” However, the experimental data always points to relative time. You wish to count the age of the universe for absolute time – the stationary – Observer (1), even though we have never observed a fixed point in space. Is that scientific? Instead why not take the word of the One who was there (Job 9: 8)?

     He alone stretches out the heavens
     and treads on the waves of the sea.

     The only objective scientific conclusion that can be made here is that the entire universe could have (physically possible)been created by a supernatural force in a way consistent with Biblical account. Any conclusion reached excluding the possibility of the Biblical six day account must be rejected in that it must be based on the closed system premise. It is true that the closed system premise has not been shown to be a false premise. However, it is most unreasonable to use the closed system premise to falsify Biblical account when in fact no closed systems have ever been observed.

     So, now I have given you a model to ponder. Instead of being sarcastic, “It was 6,000 years old at one point in time,” do you or do you not accept the possibility that the universe could be as young today – that’s right now – as 6,000 years old?

     -Mel

203. 

     mfox

     Said this on December 29th, 2006 at 9:05pm:

     ---

     Samphire,

     Unfortunately some of my maths did not come out as written in the last post.

     The bottom line is this, the average velocity for the first six days of the universe was in the neighborhood of 2.9999999999998 x 10^8 m/s.

     Interestingly enough I received a book titled “Genesis and the Big Bang” by Gerald L. Schroeder, Ph.D. (M.I.T) as a Christmas present from a colleague. Schroeder does an able job explaining the model in chapter 2 of this work.

     -Mel

204. 

     TeamLaw

     Said this on January 9th, 2007 at 1:37pm:

     ---

     Dear Kent,
     We were saddened to hear that you and your wife were attacked by the feds and accordingly prosecuted. A message was sent to us via our private message service on our Open Forum that informed us about your situation. You had referred so many people to us in the past, that we were a bit shocked that you never contacted us regarding your situation. We expect you may not have had the results you had if you had kept in touch with us and learned more about the true nature of such taxing relations. We expected you were aware of the information we help people learn but considering your present situation we wonder whether our expectation in that was more than you were aware of. Regardless of that, our prayers are with you and we hope you will fare well. We have not heard from you in a few years so we had no idea that you were experiencing difficulties with IRS. Feel free to contact us but please be aware that we do not process e-mail except through the private message system on our Open Forum ( http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/index.php ). Again our prayers are with you and congratulations on your successes in spreading the Word of our King. We are especially pleased to hear of such successes so similar to our father Joseph’s ordeal. Your blessings await you for your devout service of our King.
     Team Law.

205. 

     TeamLaw

     Said this on January 9th, 2007 at 1:48pm:

     ---

     Regarding the last posts from ‘mfox’, we expect any attempt to understand the space-time relationship regarding the Creation using Newtonian Physics would be problematic at best. We also expect understanding the physics of the Creation is better explained using quantum physics math and that certainly supports your position that it is impossible to explain or disprove the Creation using a closed system premise.
     Team Law.

206. 

     writinginthewild.com / Continental Ignorance

     Said this on January 18th, 2007 at 9:35am:

     ---

     [...] Dr. Kent Hovind is the probably the best known Creationist to argue that the Earth is not as old as science says, and that the fossils evidence must therefore illustrate that dinosaurs and people co-existed. Just like the Flintstones! Hovind and his wife were recently convicted of various tax fraud charges and he now contributes to the Creation Science Evangelism Blog from his cell. Here is his post from November 20, a few weeks after his conviction. You can’t make this stuff up. What a contrast these two are to Dr. King’s focus on poverty and justice. He must be turning over in his grave. [...]

207. 

     I know.

     Said this on April 19th, 2007 at 10:38pm:

     ---

     Over morse code….

     Well, Hitler went into the wind and later, reemerged as the mildy successful British Pop star, Atom Ant .. Koanan are you referring to the current trade policies as set and mandated by the WTO?…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.