Exciting things are happening here at CSE as we further the creation message!
We now have YouTube and GodTube accounts. There you can view our promos and other recommended resources. These will help equip you in introducing the world to Christ our Creator. Subscribe to us and be notified of new videos.
We’ve also released a new promo for Eric Hovind. Check out Eric’s dynamic presentation of the creation message in the promo below.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=873359246564571406&hl=en" height="326" width="400" /]
Endtime, im sorry for mistating what i meant. i do not mean we should kill in the name of god or that i am better for beleiving in god. but you do have to agree that what CSE ministries did was illegal by filing false DMCAs on the youtube videos. but i was trying to say is that sometimes you have to break laws like that, that do not harm anybody in order to get the christian message across. we cant spread the christian faith while there is videos like that on youtube and you did what is right.
djhouk,
providing “false information” under oath to a federal judge isn’t lying…… per se…..
unless
while knowing that the statement is false or [OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR ]
not believing it to be true.
there are thus two situations that you are totally missing.
1. a person can speak the truth but think that it is untrue and thus be guilty of lying or perjury.
2. a person can speak an untruth that they believe is true and thus be innocent in their statement.
If providing false information alone was lying you wouldn’t have one politician left in congress or the senate – so you see, in one way, I do agree with your campaign to redefine the word – perhaps your motives are entirely noble.
But they should not be used among those of us who have some regard for ultimate truth.
Dear C Marychurch
is this the church below? Was it, perchance, built as a roman catholic church? Interesting how surnames did develope. I believe the romans would still be calling them gentilicium or cognomen if they were still pulling the tax strings:- ens legis – stramineus homo – corporate coloured person – Juridical Person – seeing they aren’t
cheers
Phillip-George of the Muir Family either of the Gordan Clan or Muir Clans depending on how you read history.
(c)1974 – (c)2007 All Rights Reserved
The church office is located on the corner of Old Marylebone Road and Edgware Road
St Mary’s Church Office
245 Old Marylebone Road
London NW1 5QT
To Peter at endtimes,
Regarding your post to the Jersey Girl on September 18th, 2007 at 1:05pm:
Looks like Rebecca the Jersey Girl forgot to read the Bible. Perhaps you can send her one.
Have a good day,
The Campus Minister at campusministry
END TIMES WROTE: Dear Btodd,
Young man is appropriate compared to me but if you would wish to avoid that I will. First, the Bible is the source of authority of Christians. However, none of us have all of the understanding of its contents, so yes, we do at times disagree. That does not mean that the Bible itself is confusing, just our own shortcomings. END QUOTE
From a non-believer’s point of view, this isn’t a case of ‘at times we disagree’. I have seen quite a few posts here decrying that many denominations of Christianity are not Christians at all, most notably Catholics. My point is that every single denomination, and especially the fundamentalist version that is predominant at CSE, believes that they are closest to the truth, while many others are wrong. And there seems to be a notion in fundamentalism that the harder something is to believe, or the more separated it makes one from society (‘the world’), or the more literally it is taken, or the more contrary to our senses, then the more virtuous the faith; the closer to God’s true will. From a non-believer’s standpoint, there appears to be no method for determining truth among the various beliefs being thrown at me, not only among the numerous religions, but Christianity itself.
END TIMES WROTE: As far as the issue of breaking man’s laws to keep God’s laws is a well discussed topic in many places. Essentially, if we were in Nazi Germany and you were required by law to do evil against the Jews, disobeying an unjust law is justified by God. No specifics at this time. END QUOTE
My point (being an unbeliever) is….how do you know it’s from God, other than your faith? What method would you suggest in determining if something is God’s will or not? In a way that I can differentiate from someone else’s faith, hopefully. Your example is a bit too easy; one doesn’t need a God to tell them that murdering Jews was wrong. How about claiming copyright on something that you know isn’t copyrighted? I don’t know if it qualifies as a crime, but it’s certainly dishonest. As a non-believer, am I supposed to see that and admire the use of dishonesty to further Creationism? Do you think Jesus would approve of it?
END TIMES WROTE: I still would recommend for all to search the Scriptures for we find many amazing things here including those verses that speak of the false Islamic religion (Jeremiah 23:23-32). There is no other book like it in the world. Yet, no one will ever find God without wanting to find God or in other words, seeking to find God. The Bible promises that if you are truly seeking to find Him, you will. END QUOTE
Your last statement is another of Christianity’s clever comebacks for unbelief. ‘If you sought God and ended up not believing, then you really didn’t seek God. No matter what, the faith is true. You just didn’t do it sincerely.’ I realize the Bible promises that, and that’s part of why I no longer believe in the Bible, because my experience did not match up with its claims. Conversely, I could use that same argument every time a Christian tells me they used to be an atheist.
END TIMES WROTE: May the Lord God show you those truths and forgive His earthly followers of our weak representation of His truths here on earth.
Peter END QUOTE
Hey, I’m not simply picking on Christians for being imperfect, since I fail myself. My unbelief isn’t solely due to the actions of Christians, or it would be shallow unbelief indeed. Thank you for your reply.
Btodd
“So, to anyone out there in the world, please show me the actual evolutionary mechanism by which you claim this as a proof of increased genomic information by evolutionary processes. Quite a simple request since this is one of the most often cited “proofs” of evolution. Just show us the mechanism please.”
Gene duplication/mutation. That’s the mechanism.
JERSEY GIRL:
Hey Lady!
You’re a crack-up! I didn’t say, “Keep your mouth shut!” No way! I said, “Duck for cover!” as in ‘in-coming-missile’.
Would you please hold me up in prayer this weekend: Lord willing, I will be teaching a Creation Science class at a women’s retreat this Saturday. Thanks!
ENDTIMES:
Hi Peter!
You said, “I believe quite strongly that the church of God today is doing as I did the first semester of my senior year, I slacked off and did not present my usual complete effort and even though I had the highest grade in the class that year, it did not in the least measure up to what others before me had accomplished. The church of today is not in the least commended in the comments by Jesus Himself in Revelation chapter three. I would suggest that we learn from His admonitions and understand that there will not be any “curve” for our time and age as so many seem to assume it will:
Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
The church of today has forgotten to wear the robes of righteousness and to take away our spiritual blindness with the eyesalve of Jesus. (Look specifically for the answer to the “eyesalve” in II Peter 1:2-15 if you want to know what the cure for spiritual blindness is.)”
I agree with you whole heartedly about the condition of the church these days. It greatly concerns me & I think about it a lot.
We have an incredible responsibility to use the tools that God has given us wisely, & for the benefit of those who do not have the freedoms that we have. May God spit in our eyes so that we can see! And may He instill in our hearts His very own passion for what needs to be done!
Zarathustra
Said this on September 18th, 2007 at 3:23pm: Ah, the old straw man argument of mentioning abiogenesis.
People were saying there are no beneficial mutations, Darling mentioned a well-known (to anyone interested in the field anyway) example, and all you can do apparently is say “that doesn’t explain how life arose”. In other words, you’ve got nothing.
If you and the people at CSE are so familiar with the example, then why does Eric Hovind STILL claim there are no beneficial mutations? Why haven’t the videos been corrected?
Dear Zarathustra,
First, abiogenesis is not in the least a straw man argument as you have implied. Simply because the many experiments in abiogenesis have been failures and the complexity of the cell is such that life arising by chance chemical interactions is absurd, does not in the least diminish the simple fact that even though evolution does not by “definition” include this, it does however assume that it has occurred and in practice the two concepts are intertwined together through methodological naturalism. Both concepts are outcomes of that larger all encompassing theory of the origin of the universe and all that we can observe today. So, if you wish to state that “evolution” does not include abiogenesis, go ahead.
Yet will you likewise disagree that both abiogenesis and evolution are part of the larger theoretical methodological naturalism and the answer to that is no. So, under the current science understandings, it is absolutely at the discretion of those that believe in creation by our God of Israel to require you to likewise provide answers to the issue of abiogenesis since this is in continuum with evolution through the initial big bang theory all the way down to chimp and man issues. Thus, abiogenesis is not in the least a straw man argument as you have incorrectly postulated.
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Secondly, I have already invited you to comment on the mechanism of your so called “beneficial” mutation for the nylon degradation enzymes which you have yet to do. So, if anyone wishes to defend evolution and use this most often cited point, please tell me in black and white details the actual mechanism of this phenomena. It would be most helpful for all to put your references at the end of your answer for all to review. I am still patiently waiting.
Thank you,
Peter
Dear Eric Hovind,
You are a stud, my man! Keep up the awesome work! I hope you get to read this, and you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers! Hopefully I can get some wheels turning and you can come visit my church in the future!
In His love,
Tyler B.
Zarathustra said:
People were saying there are no beneficial mutations, Darling mentioned a well-known (to anyone interested in the field anyway) example, and all you can do apparently is say “that doesn’t explain how life arose”. In other words, you’ve got nothing.
“How life arose” is the whole point, genius! If the Sp. K172 strain of flavobacterium is one of the cornerstones of your religion than “in other words, you’ve got nothing”, either.
Former Follier said:
I wonder if Jesus would so glibly denegrate a non-believer. [does your spellcheck work, brainiac?]
Answer: see Matt. 12:34, Matt. 23:33, John 8:44. Wonder no more!
That was a great video. It professionally done and just what we need to present the truth. Now if only my Christian friends would believe in God’s Word 100%. Instead, they mix it with evolution and believe the flood was just a myth, or maybe just a local flood. Yes, the usual fallacies…
I see how it is… Nobody wants to respond to my points about CSE stomping on first amendment rights?
Please listen to reason guys!
[EDITOR'S NOTE: ...Ummm ... you are a freshman, right Rob? Who is stomping around? P.A. ]
EndTimes
Said this on September 18th, 2007 at 3:23pm: “Hmmm, I do not in any manner believe that the Sp. K172 strain of flavobacterium has shown that “random” mutations can increase genomic information. I will post further after darling has an opportunity to respond and show us the mechanism of his so called beneficial mutation.”
Hi, you old zealot,
I took advantage of an Indian summer over here in England to sail over to France for a few days. Safely back home again and the summer finally gone I find that my favourite blog has degenerated into an unpleasant Christian spat between some equally unpleasant patricians and a number of much more pleasant lady contrarians. For the record, both Jesus and I think that the women are slightly ahead in the debate.
As to your remarks quoted above please would you first define exactly what you mean by “increased genomic information” and “beneficial mutation” and I will happily rejoin the conversation although you will have to be quick as I am off to Scotland at the weekend for a week or two.
On a second point, Endtimes, with respect to the new CSE video promo and given his dismal lack of any formal post high-school science education, do you think that Eric has the “bottom” (as we say in England) to maintain the creation v science debate with any semblance of authority or credulity? His removal of the YouTube videos seems to indicate a panicky lack of confidence in his own ability to answer the anti-YEC criticisms.
Kind regards
Samphire
RON:
So, you’re saying Jesus was an intolerant [EDITED] just like yourself? That explains quite a bit.
It’s a nickname. So no, I am not a freshman. How about you guys stay away from the ad hom and address the issues?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Fair enough. Let me also mention/remind folks that the primary purpose of this blog is not for debate, and not in particular to debate evolution vs. creation. This blog was started and was intended to focus on giving news regarding the Hovinds and regarding CSE. Then folks started commenting with each new posting....
Concerning your challenge - for myself, I do chime in regularly, but I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate on whether order fell together (from nothingness and then) from chaos all by itself. Since that belief system defies science each step of the way I already know the answers to such questions. P.A. ]
Editor. I’m not talking about creation/evolution. I’m talking about the vile acts trying to stomp out our First amendment rights! CSE ministries violated copyright laws in an attempt to silence critics of Hovind.
Did you even read what I wrote?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Within CSE ... it is all being discussed. Your interpretation of "violated" ... and "an attempt to silence critics" is different than how some would term it, but your objections are noted, sir. P.A. ]
Paul: You will allow personal attacks from one member to another but when I use a word that Kent himself used in debate settings, on the radio and in seminars I get edited? You are unbelievably and unabashedly biased. Anything to protect the elect of god from engaging their mentali faculties, huh? Pathetic.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: I think you wanted to call Jesus (and also one of our honorable blog commentators) a "jerk" was that the word?
Let's see ... I think it was yesterday that one skeptic started his short message with "Numerology? How silly? ..." I had to decide whether to keep it. It had content. ...But it also seemed to me to be a cheap shot. ...So rather than label it a "hit message" as I sometimes do (a message intending to maim, without content that informs or persuades) I decided to respond in kind and to call him silly too. He (and another person chiming in) then went after me. Fine, they can come back at me if they want. ...As long as there is content within the message!
If they can dish it out, they can take it. And the person did. We have moved on. Maybe I was wrong to do respond in kind and call him/her a "scared skeptic". Well, I did. But it may have been wrong for me to do that.
Everyone makes mistakes. Even I made a mistake once!
Anyway ... your short message seemed to be a kind of (non-content-based) cheap shot or "hit message". I didn't like it. Biased yes. Fair though - I hope so. I try to let almost anything through. I believe that most skeptics see themselves as REASONABLE folks, and that it is us "Bible believers" who are off base.
Then the Bible-believing-types, like those I often consort with, think that THEY are the REASONABLE ones. Hmmm ... I am sensing a certain level of discord. Yes, it is there. I can feel it. Hmmm... // Okay, back to our discussion.
Calling the God of the Bible a "jerk" is a really, really stupid thing to do!
Jesus said, (Matthew 12:36-37) "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
The physical is temporary. Look at your hand. Move the fingers around. Then stop. Why were the fingers moving? Your soul is in a shell! It has been entrusted to you for awhile. These bodies are only temporary. Your body is not "you" but merely a part of you. The physical (that evolution focuses on) is actually the least important part of our beings. ... Well, you are free to believe what you want about this life. I am sorry if you feel that I was overly harsh to edit your previous posting. Please do not be (what many of us here consider to be) blasphemous. That does not persuade your "debate opponents" within this blog. P.A. ]
Ron_Francesco
Said this on September 19th, 2007 at 12:54pm:
““How life arose” is the whole point, genius! If the Sp. K172 strain of flavobacterium is one of the cornerstones of your religion than “in other words, you’ve got nothing”, either.”
No, how life arose is not relevant to evolution or the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is what happens after organic life enters the stage.
K172 a cornerstone? That’s odd, Darwin knew nothing about it. Nylon hadn’t even been invented yet.
EndTimes
Said this on September 18th, 2007 at 9:59pm:
“First, abiogenesis is not in the least a straw man argument as you have implied.”
Yes, it is. We were talking about beneficial mutations, abiogenesis has absolutely nothing at all to do with it.
“Yet will you likewise disagree that both abiogenesis and evolution are part of the larger theoretical methodological naturalism”
Abiogenesis isn’t a theory to begin with, but they’re both part of “science” if that’s what you mean. So is the Theory of Gravitation, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. What’s your point?
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position”
Like claiming abiogenesis has anything to do with the theory of evolution or beneficial mutation. It doesn’t.
And the score is:
Ron_Francesco-1 Former Follier-0
Ron_Francesco-1 Zarathustra-0
How would you interpret “violated” and “an attempt to silence critics” other than just that?
CSE submitted under penalty of purgery false DMCA claims to works that they had no rights to. There were videos (that were critical of Kent Hovind) that had no CSE material in it at all and CSE still filed DMCA claims against them.
You see, when you do something against the law, it is said that you “violate” the law.
When you take down videos of people only critical of your views and leave others up, you are said to be “silencing critics”.
Throw me a bone please. How am I supposed to interpret CSE’s actions? How do you interpret CSE’s actions? And who are the people that would term it differently?
Am I wrong for thinking what I do about CSE’s actions?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Well, many of the persons active within this blog are very well educated. I am repeatedly surprised by the high level of discussions. -Yes, strong disagreements, and ... insults do fly too. It is a blog. Most folks are pretty anonymous and feel that they can write what they want.
Dr. Hovind has one level of "tolerance" of how folks challenge him. The man was out speaking over half of each week for many years! He was always ready to debate. That is rare.
I feel that I (though with some different character qualities) also can take hearing strong contrary opinions. It is not always easy to do.
For the women who sometimes post within this site (I hope this is not sexist...) I am concerned for how some counter against them just as strongly.
This blog can get pretty rough at times.
"Legal" is a realm all its own. Many folks think in terms of (how they understand) "right vs. wrong". But what is "legal" can sometimes differ with those things.
Within CSE ... this is being discussed. I am sorry that I cannot say more at this time. ...This is a difficult situation. To believers, I request prayers for the best course of action.
Maybe I should mention that I actually "contract" with CSE. I am not down there, in Pensacola. I help in various ways. Moderating this blog is one way that I am trying to help on a daily basis. I apologize that I cannot say more about the "copyright" issues situation at this time. P.A. ]
RON FRANSECO WROTE: And the score is:
Ron_Francesco-1 Former Follier-0
Ron_Francesco-1 Zarathustra-0 END QUOTE
I don’t think somebody who won would feel it necessary to post a score sheet.
It’s kind of like a thief walking into a room and saying, “What are you looking at, I didn’t steal anything!”, when no one accused him of stealing anything. I hope I didn’t get too psychological just then.
Btodd
Most of your response was irrelevant, and the rest of it said nothing of what I asked. You cannot answer “How would you interpret “violated” and “an attempt to silence critics” other than just that?” You cannot personally answer this question with your thoughts and views? You are leading me to believe that we are viewing the actions of CSE in two different lights. This is a cut and dry situation though.
Do you, or do you not believe that person A is “right” (legally or morally) in claiming copyright actions against person B for material that person A does not own the copyrights for?
What if you personally put a video up on youtube where you were just talking into the camera and not violating youtube TOS, and I filed a DMCA take down notice for your video? What would you do?
I’m pretty sure you can answer a least parts of those questions.
Dear Zarathustra,
If you wish to talk about beneficial mutations, then talk about beneficial mutations. Please, give us some concrete examples from peer reviewed journals so that we can look at the data ourselves.
Thank you,
Peter
Dear Zarathustra,
One further comment, it is painfully apparant that the discussion of abiogenesis as not part of the ToE is quite artificial to say the least of which it was not separated in the past when the evolutionists believed that chemical and organic evolution would be confirmed. However, those prospects are quite dim, so now people wish to dissasociate themselves from this concept. Yet, that is again a most artificial distinction since the actual underlying theory of “modern” science is methodological naturalism and that is why people object to the idea of a Creator. So, yes, the big bang, solar evolution, chemical evolution, orgnanic evolution are all assumed under the theory of methodological naturalism to have occurred even if the how of that occurrence is still not known. For someone to deny the importance of abiogenesis to the ToE, I find quite risible (thank you LH) since they are all part of the proposed continuum of methodological naturalism. That is indeed the connection between “beneficial” mutations and abiogenesis. So, you want to tell me that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
Fair enough, but what I want to talk about is the entire continuum of methodological naturalism including the big bang, solar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, organic evolution (abiogenesis) and organismal evolution including “beneficial” mutations.
In kindness,
Peter
Ron_Francesco
Said this on September 20th, 2007 at 10:54am:
“And the score is:
Ron_Francesco-1 Former Follier-0
Ron_Francesco-1 Zarathustra-0″
Are you keeping score of who sidesteps the issue? We were talking about beneficial mutations, abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with that subject. Mutations happen, some are beneficial, some detrimental, most are neutral. No amount of sidestepping will change those facts.
You guys can respond to me you know. I don’t bite too hard.
EndTimes,
The big bang is not a strictly naturalistic theory, as it was originally proposed by a Roman Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaitre).
In fact, evolution isn’t either; Darwin was, similarly, a Christian. Kenneth R. Miller, an evolutionary biologist, is also a christian. Ergo the two are not mutually exclusive.
Also, the mechanisms involved in the ToE are not the same kind of ‘evolution’ driving the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, etc, if it can be called that. I’d say calling them all evolution as well is a bit of a misnomer, perhaps even a red herring. Just be careful with your terminology.
Patashu, just because the person that is involved with a theory believes in god does NOT mean the theory is religious. The theory stands on its on account.
I agree with the rest of your comment on calling everything evolution. It is a red herring.
(Nobody going to tackle my comments on CSE’s illegal take down of works they do not own copyrights to?)
I have been reading these comments with awe. I can see that the Christians here are quite worn out with all of the smut and venom that’s being hurled. The thing is, you cannot expect the world to conform to biblical standards. It is clear that the end of our present world is near, and with each beautiful sunrise and sunset here in Texas, I expect the heavenly host to split the eastern sky any day now. I think some of the Christians here need to read the “Answer a fool according to his folly…” proverb and use some discernment as to whether to even address some of the hateful posts here. Those who hate us will hate us whether our answers make sense to them or not. Why did the Jews in the synagogue literally gnash on Stephen with their teeth? They knew he spoke the truth, and they knew they were guilty of crucifying God Almighty Incarnate. This is all the same. All of these people who have truly studied the evidence of evolution (particles to people) know that the mechanisms of natural selection and descent with modification are not sufficient to organize inorganic chemicals into Kent Hovind. They’re not venomous because they believe such nonsense — they’re venomous because they know that those first, crucial chapters of the Bible are true, are supported by the preaching of Christ the Creator, and signify judgment to all who reject Christ — they know that judgment will condemn them.
As to Dr. Hovind’s situation, guilt or innocence, or whatever else — all is in God’s hands. I withhold judgment, as I think all Christians should do. I remember something Dr. Hovind said on one of his seminars when talking about Job’s friends and people who are having problems: “When your friend is sick (I think convicted and imprisoned could count here), love him, pray for him, and shut up!” God is the judge, and all of Mankind will be judged by Jesus Christ, the Word of God.
As to the venomous atheists here — you prove the Bible true — some of your very words, and certainly your attitudes toward Christians are warned of by Jesus when He tells us that the world will hate us, and in many other scriptures. I beg you, believe Christ — love Him because He died for you, so that you will be eternally with your Creator and not suffer the judgment reserved for those who reject God.
Sincerely,
Tree
“Woe unto them that take evil for good and good for evil…” Isaiah 5:20