From: Kent Hovind
Sent: August 17, 2007
To: Captain of Ship to Italy with Passenger, the Apostle Paul
Subject: Re: Discussions on the Wisdom of Sailing Against the Advice of the Prisoner Paul and the “Preserved Word” from which He Preaches
(Read Acts 27:6-44)
KH: Hey Captain! I hate to bother you at this busy time, but can you talk for a minute (between verses 11 and 12)?
Captain: Sure, knee-mail suspends time; so it won’t effect me at all.
KH: I understand that you own the ship that is headed to Italy.
Captain: Yes, I do. She’s a beauty, isn’t she!
KH: Yes, sir! It’s huge too. One like this must cost a fortune!
Captain: Oh, you wouldn’t believe me if I told you! This one holds nearly 300 people (27:37) plus cargo and tackling (27:19). Even though she’s big, she can sail fast. I’m mighty proud of her!
KH: I heard you just decided to try to sail on for Italy. It’s past good sailing time (27:9) and pretty dangerous to try now, isn’t it?
Captain: I know it’s the end of the season, but there is no good place to spend the winter here (27:12). I’ve got a great crew and a tough ship. We’ll make it just fine.
KH: Isn’t one of your passengers a famous preacher named Paul, and didn’t he advise you not to try to sail?
Captain: Yes, he did. But why should I believe him? Let’s look at the facts here. Paul is a convicted felon with a long history of legal battles. He is not a sailor or a weatherman. He has a lot of religious schooling, but it is all wrong.
Paul believes God guides him through life and even claims he saw the Lord in a bright light (Acts 9:3; 22:6)! Come on, Kent! This Paul guy is a certified lunatic! He claims the light knocked him off his horse. Can you believe that?
KH: He has done some interesting miracles (Acts 13:11; 14:10; 16:18, 26; 19:11) God seems to have His hand on Paul. You may want to reconsider your decision about sailing.
Captain: No way! Paul is also part of that cult that believes God actually preserves His very words (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV). My pastor in Alexandria (Acts 27:6) says the Bible has lots of mistakes. He is a graduate of the large university in our town that is known around the world for having the largest and most complete library anywhere on earth. It is the home of the great mathematician Euclid and the 400-foot-tall Paphos lighthouse. My pastor and other scholars are working on rewriting the Bible to correct all the thousands of mistakes in it. Paul doesn’t have a clue about these things. He still rejects the idea of fixing the old Bible he preaches from. I don’t believe or trust his opinion on spiritual matters. We are sailing on.
KH: It seems like your mind is made up.
Captain: Yes, sir. We are packing now and leave in an hour.
KH: Just two more quick questions then. First, can you swim? Secondly, is your boat insured (27:41-44)?
Captain: Huh?
The editor said:
So, … You are in school and the teacher or professor is teaching that “evolution is science” and that it cannot be questioned. What should you do?
That teacher is no science teacher. The most important thing about science is that it CAN be questioned, it MUST be questioned if it is ever to advance. Despite what the editor here says about creationism being science, it is not science precisely because it cannot be questioned. (”The bible is non-negotiable”, right Paul?) Any “scientist” who says science cannot be questioned is no scientist (hence Paul, you are not a scientist.) And BTW, I did study both sides. I watched a number of Hovind’s debates and seminars and was unconvinced, because unlike his audiences, I know enough science to know that his is severely flawed. So you can drop the “evolutionists don’t study both sides” argument, because it is not true.
However, I see you have refused to approve my post informing your readers about the truth of the craters on Mars, so I don’t have very high hopes for this post either.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Sigh, again, for Christians (or those who claim to be) the Creation account cannot be questioned - on a religious level. Evolution denies the Fall. If there was no Fall then there was no need for Christ to come, hence no Gospel message. (On a science level, of course it can be questioned. And creationists win the scientific debates, as you have seen, correct?)
You are correct that a science teacher "should" be open to research and valid evidence, but many are just following corrupt textbooks. http://www.textbookreviews.org/
There are many "Lies in the Textbooks" http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=443&cat=DVDs (Dr. Hovind's Seminar #4).
Eighty years ago, as today, many evolutionists just wanted to hide from God. http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/Predicmt01.htm of 1925; "The Predicament of Evolution". They don't care what the actual scientific evidence really is. Evolution is a great mental hiding place. They start from the premise that "evolution is true", never mind the details. Also see: http://www.creationism.org/books/MartinHellSchools/index.htm from 1923; "Hell and the High Schools:
Christ or Evolution - Which?".
Which debates and/or seminars did you watch? Do you mind if I test your knowledge from them?
1, how old is the Sahara Desert based on its current growth rate? It is the world's largest desert and it grows each year. If someone contends that the Earth is "millions and millions" of years old then why is this good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old? If the Earth is a believed "millions of years old" shouldn't it have already reached its limits (in Morocco) millions of years ago?
2, how old is the Mississippi River Delta based on its current growth rate? It is one of the world's largest rivers and it grows each year. If someone contends that the Earth is "millions and millions" of years old then why is this good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old? Rain is needed for plants and animals on the continents. Some rainfall goes into streams and rivers. If the Earth is a believer "millions of years old" shouldn't the Mississippi River have long since produced a delta showing at least 1 million years worth of supposed erosion and deposition?
3, since there are 6000 to 7000 fossilized human remains that have been found to date, when evolutionists exclude 99% of them, and focus on the less than 1% of fossilized bones that show either malnutrition, or deformities due to inbreeding or other aberrant conditions, how does this show that the fossil record is actually "The Creationists' Best Friend"?
4, we know that dragon legends (large dangerous reptilian creatures) are found worldwide. Logically either all of our ancestors saw dinosaurs periodically until they were slowly driven to extinction, or all of our ancestors are wrong just so that the temporary false religion of God-hating evolution can be true; which is more likely, logically and historically speaking?
5, which debate(s) did the evolution-teaching professor or skeptical opponent win? Did any of them win? None of them did, right? A few of them did a good showing, but of the Hovind DVD debates that I have watched, creation theory won out every time!
So DQ, if you have indeed "studied both sides" enlighten me with the creation theory answers to the above basic questions, please. P.A. ]
Dear ‘Ganf’,
I appreciate the info & links concerning my ‘chert’ sample. I’ve always heard this type rock/soil referred to as ‘chert’. I wasn’t so sure of the spelling, though. I’m no scientist/scholar, but I’m not so sure what I retrieved is what you’ve brought to my attention. the one link you gave me showed what appeared to be microscopic creatures. what I have in my possesion is a layer of sediment so pourus w/fossils of cylindrical creatures that it looks like a petrified sponge, and VERY brittle!,these creatures are tube-like, have segments, or ‘slices’ (like coins stacked together). at a glance, they resemble the vertebrate column of a small animal.they vary in diameter from pencil-lead size to thumbsize & bigger. does that help at al, ganf?? mr. hovind, when you’re freed, would you like a sample for your museum?(if you’ve not already attained one or more).
sincerely,
tony,
boaz,alabama
Hi Samphire.
“I’m pleased that you northerners are so easily amused”
I know I have a weird sense of humour.
I actually live in the Warrington area… the church that I go to meet up with M.f.G church every weekend for ‘outreach’. The Pastor there is real blessing to me and a long time friend of the two Elders at my church(I’ve known him for something like four- five years.)
I promote the church because the Pastor there gives sound teaching and it is a safe place to worship the Living God.
They do recognize that I use a link to their church web page on the few blog sites that I participate in. But I doubt they remember my ‘greedy guts’ pseudonym. I will E-mail them and ask them to pass your E-mail on to me.
Thanks a lot.
GORGE.
PAUL ABRAMSON:
Hey Paul,
The catalyst is ‘supercritical water’. The best explanation is at
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes17.html#wp3396817
There are also 2 other places this is explained, but not in as much detail. They are
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html#wp7930140 and
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ311.html#wp3254192
Hi, Welder’s Wife,
According to your link at:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes19.html
“A 1-megaton hydrogen bomb releases almost 5 × 1022 ergs of energy. Therefore, the release of 1.7 × 1037 ergs is the equivalent of exploding 300 trillion hydrogen bombs! However, most of the energy in the subterranean water was generated continuously over many weeks (not one big explosion) and was focused up through the rupture and expelled into space.””
Rescuing an old envelope from my wastepaper basket I made the following hurried calculations on its back:-
A 1-megaton bomb is the equivalent of about 70 Nagasaki bombs. The surface area of the earth is about 200 million square miles. The hydroplate theory therefore requires the release of about 105,000 Nagasaki-sized bombs for every square mile of the Earth’s surface. Assuming that the “fountains of the deep” were active over a 40 day period that represents 2,625 Nagasaki-sized bombs per square mile per day – the equivalent of one bomb on an area the size of a football field every day for 40 days.
Noah was a very brave man to take to sea in that wooden boat. It reminds me of the public information films in the 1950s in which the government advised us all in the event of nuclear war to shut all the windows and hide under the kitchen table.
Dear DQ;
I believe Paul has admitted more than once that creationism is a religion or a religious belief. We admit that we believe creation according to the Bible to be exactly as the Bible has stated. We are not given every detail of every aspect of creation, although, we are given a great curiosity and therefore most “I believe” truly great science has come through a foundation of a belief in a creator and His creation. I will admit that there has also been much great science done by evolutionists but their belief in evolution hasn’t helped their science instead it has hindered it.
We believe evolution to be a “religion” also, the only difference is that the Bible, when ever it touches on any field of study, has never been found to be wrong.
From my perspective (I was privileged to work a summer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the HTML) most science that is being conducted has nothing to do with religion at all, it is usually trying to find a better or different material for an application in industry or finding the mechanical properties of new materials for engineers to use in design etc.
It appears that most “dogma” and closed-mindedness comes from the evolutionary side, although the more I study the more closed minded I get toward evolutionary thought.
Gene Schmeling
Paul,
I fear you are labouring under a misapprehension. I am not suggesting a limit on freedom of speech, although arguably you are by refusing to post reasonable contributions by the rationalists on this blog. To disallow serious discussion of serious topics is censorship. No more, no less. It is more reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia than of a free society. But I suppose that were we to move to a theocracy it would be par for the course. After all, Nazism and Communism were both religions.
As far as agnosticism is concerned the word was coined by T H Huxley in 1869. It comes from the Greek ‘agnostos’ meaning unknown, unknowable. It refers to the philosophical position that holds we can know nothing of things beyond material phenomena or beyond our own experience. Ignorant, on the other hand, comes from ‘ignorare’ meaning not to know. But the two words have quite different meanings.
Similarly scepticism is a philosophical position with a long and honourable tradition. It can be traced back to the Greeks who were the first philosophers. It should not be used as a term of abuse, particularly by those who ought to know better.
Finally, I must say that I am more than a little baffled as to why I should read John before reading Genesis. John came very late in the day and his memoir or account – yes, that’s what the word ‘kata’ means – tends towards mysticism. He does not have much in common with the synoptics. It is surely better to start at the beginning. As the King said to the White Rabbit “Begin at the beginning, go on to the end, then stop”. That to me appears to be an excellent principle.
Regards,
Dermot
Hi Samphire,
“Noah was a very brave man to take to sea in that wooden boat. It reminds me of the public information films in the 1950s in which the government advised us all in the event of nuclear war to shut all the windows and hide under the kitchen table.”
Who shut the door…was it an old man of 600?
Gen 7:16”And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.”
He who started this good thing will finish it.
God bless
GORGE
Paul wrote:
”1, how old is the Sahara Desert based on its current growth rate? It is the world’s largest desert and it grows each year. ”2, how old is the Mississippi River Delta based on its current growth rate? It is one of the world’s largest rivers and it grows each year. ”
[EDITED ... (about 4-5 paragraphs removed...) ]
Please back up your evidence with references, please.
”4, we know that dragon legends (large dangerous reptilian creatures) are found worldwide. Logically either all of our ancestors saw dinosaurs periodically until they were slowly driven to extinction, or all of our ancestors are wrong just so that the temporary false religion of God-hating evolution can be true; which is more likely, logically and historically speaking?”
[EDITED ... 4-5 paragraphs removed....]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Anyone who has ever watched a single Kent Hovind video knows where these references are, Samphire. Why are you so willingly ignorant? I see that you sent in some three long messages in response to my questions to DQ from this morning. .... Study! ... Or again, start your own blog specifically for hiding skeptics who do NOT at all want to know our true ancient history. We'll be glad to post the link here. I will wait for DQ's responses to my query concerning his (as he contends) previous studies regarding creation theory. P.A. ]
Paul Abramson
Why did you edit out Samphire’s responses to the Sahara Desert (not the oldest desert), Mississippi River delata and the dragon legends (legends means fictionial stories)? Are you afraid that he is correct in his answers? Or is it because you claim to no longer accepting post on creation vs. evolution?
By censoring the debate, you are letting the terrorists (bad guys) win. Also, it is not respectful and ethical.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: We are not having a creation-evolution debate within this blog.
We are starting from the premise "Since the Bible is true..."
You are perfectly free to disagree!
My questions were to DQ; not to Samphire. P.A. ]
Dermot,
You said: “I am not suggesting a limit on freedom of speech, although arguably you are by refusing to post reasonable contributions by the rationalists on this blog.”
Hm. If a comment is refused, how can you tell it was a reasonable one?
“To disallow serious discussion of serious topics is censorship.”
Well, then consider CSEBlogs a private club. “Membership” is granted to those who follow the rules. By now you should know what the rules are. If you do not like the rules, you are free to leave and start your own blog.
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.”
1 Timothy 6:3-6
Istvan
ynotcleverman
Said this on November 25th, 2007 at 1:30pm:
“…what I have in my possesion is a layer of sediment so pourus w/fossils of cylindrical creatures that it looks like a petrified sponge, and VERY brittle!,these creatures are tube-like, have segments, or ’slices’ (like coins stacked together). at a glance, they resemble the vertebrate column of a small animal.they vary in diameter from pencil-lead size to thumbsize & bigger. ”
Ah, a much different beastie than a radiolarian is what you have there! From your description, the most likely candidate is remains of a crinoid. Crinoids are quite interesting creatures. For a quick overview, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinoid
Crinoid fossils are more generally found in carbonate rocks such as limestone. Limestone and chert can certainly be found in the same formation, with chert often forming thin bands or lenses in the more massive limestone. I have some crinoid-containing limestone wherein the crinoidal columnals (discs) are silicified and resist acid. I immersed the specimen in regular white vinegar for a few weeks and the crinoidal fragments now stand in high relief to the surrounding limestone matrix. Makes for a showy specimen.
The Fort Payne Formation in Alabama does have crinoidal columnals in chert, ref:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003SC/finalprogram/abstract_49390.htm
There are websites with more crinoid information, and possibly you could find info that would identify the ones you have, if you are so interested.
I am glad you are interested in items of natural history. They serve to both entertain and also to raise questions. Please take the time to write a brief note on where the fossils were found and a tentative identification, and place it with the specimen. That way, in some future time, others (family or friends) will have an idea of what it is they are looking at, if you are no longer around.
Hope this was of some help,
Michael aka Ganf
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Evolutionary "science" teaches that there were long slow ages, each lasting millions and millions of supposed years: Cretaceous, Jurassic, Ordovician, Devonian, etc.
But actually, just as today, the pre-Flood world had multiple concurrent environments. Today we have deserts, forests, jungles, savannas, and arctic regions - all at the same time.
Imagine some religion coming up with a belief in the "Rainforest Era" that lasted "14 million years". "Yes boys and girls, and this was THE eco-system over the entire Earth for lo those entire '14 million believed years'". And then they decide that the "Savanna Era" followed for another "30 million supposed years". One single environment for the entire planet? ... Ah, but who could believe such superstitions. -Only unscientific folks.
Observable SCIENCE shows that the Earth today in the post-Flood world contains multiple concurrent differentiated environments - all at the same time. That is SCIENCE. It is observable. The same would have been true in the pre-Flood world, correct? Isn't this a reasonable conjecture? Multiple concurrent environments. (Not some "one set of life forms" for "millions of years" ... then ... another slow set. That is unscientific.)
And surely we do find various dragon and mammalian remains buried in fossil layers as evidence of the then concurrent environments.
If today's world was buried by a series of continent-crossing tidal waves we would similarly see different lifeforms in different layers. Alligators would be separated from bears; water moccasins would be in different layers than mountain goats. They would be found in different layers because they lived in different (concurrent) eco-systems, not because they lived at different times.
How long does a fresh fish last in your refrigerator? Upon death fish deteriorate quickly. (It is so amazing that such a complex creature that had self-assembled could be made of 100% bio-degradable parts... Our Creator is fantastic, isn't He?) We find many, many perfectly preserved whole fish in the fossil record. http://www.creationism.org/topbar/fossils.htm
Ummm, if there was a Global Flood, I wonder which types of life forms would be buried first? Hmmm. A hard one. Wait, what if it was life that was already on the ocean floor! (Take a look at the evolutionists' geologic column sometime and look at their supposed life burial sequence. It is a sequence showing Flood burial!! Clams, fish, amphibians are all first - those already in the water.)
SCIENCE shows that the old (pre-Flood) world was destroyed in a massive world-wide Flood. All the pre-Flood eco-systems were turned under; many of their respective life forms were buried in successive layers. Science is amazing! It helps to verify the perfect accuracy of the Bible.
Some pre-Flood life forms did not survive the Great Flood and the turbulent years that followed.
Let's stick to SCIENCE within this blog. In other words: NO evolution. P.A. ]
Dermot,
Good to hear from you.
Yes, I should have stated that it is best to read from Genesis through Revelation. Many of the “through-the-Bible-in-a-year” reading guides that appear in the backs of Bibles often skip around. It’s cool to do it that way, but I prefer reading from start to finish. I did use one of the guides my first year as a Christian, but in the 4 years since then, I have read from Genesis to Revelation.
I’m sorry to hear that you are still leaning toward agnosticism after reading God’s Word. Since you have read through the Bible, perhaps you may want to just focus on the Gospel of John, and prayerfully read it. I will be praying for you.
Billy Graham’s website (www.bgea.org) may also be a great help.
Take care,
Josh
Paul,
”[EDITOR’S NOTE: Anyone who has ever watched a single Kent Hovind video knows where these references are, Samphire. ”
In which case, Paul, as an avid fan it should not be difficult for you to provide them - just as I provide my references to you. So where are they? ... [EDITED]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Watch one or two science videos.
Get your nose out of evolutionary propaganda and watch a couple of SCIENCE-based Kent Hovind videos. Then you will know, just like us scientifically-thinking folks.
Samphire, you only know one side of this debate! All you know about creation theory is that it c-c-c-can't be true, per ridiculous things from skeptics sites.
Right?
How many times have I recently asked you to "study and then come back"?
Please.
In some ways you are a smart person. But in the MOST IMPORTANT part of life - you are negligent.
====
What is most important in life?
Health?
Car?, Home?, Career?, My good looks? ...
No.
This life on Earth is but temporary. It is preparation for REAL life. Some folks are not passing the tests. They cheat and steal. They push down others. They look to fight for its own sake. They deceive.
Logically, the most important thing in life is your personal relationship with our Creator!
He has given us a book, The Holy Bible. In it are many instructions and historically accurate stories.
Your SOUL (your essence ... your karma ... your inner being) will go back to God after this life.
Don't make it your life's pursuit to hide from God behind evolution (without even bothering to watch even one Kent Hovind video) - http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=830
Watch one DVD.
Then you too will know where the references I take for granted in quoting Dr. Hovind come from.
(Many persons will spend weeks looking for a new car or a new home. Many hours invested. To then NOT invest in your soul's future, for just a couple of hours ... to determine if the God of the Bible has told us the truth, is illogical. How important is that car, or home, or career, compared to your eternal future? P.A. ]
The Welders Wife
Said this on November 21st, 2007 at 4:44pm:
[Portions snipt]
” I’m guessing the mega stones there were also moved with the help of ice. Whoever made them possibly used ice to slide them across.”
While yours is an interesting hypothesis, there may have been other methods. I heard about this guy, featured in the below referenced video, but have not seen the video because I am afflicted with very slow dial-up. I could make the video faster than it downloads 8).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0
Granted, he is not moving blocks as large as those at the base of Baalbek, but it is just one man moving large stones. Impressive.
Michael aka Ganf
Paul:
I watched Kent’s Seminar “The Age of the Earth,” as linked to several months ago in this blog. I discussed the seminar at that time. I also watched his debate with Dr. Rainbow on YouTube, found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cffk0zQ33k
I also listened to some excerpt from his radio show in which he dealt with evolutionists, but they don’t seem to be available now due to copyright issues. Here is one such link that no longer works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf4vrH_L2Xw
I also watched some short videos of Hovind when he has been a guest on various talk shows that were not full-blown seminars or debates.
I am not sure what you are trying to do by asking me those questions. It appears Samphire already tried to answer your questions, and you censored him. Do you want me to prove that I studied both sides, is that it? If I prove that I have studied both sides, will you let me post how Hovind got all those answers wrong, and give the real answers to the questions?
I will, however, speak to #5, who won the debates? What criteria are we using to determine what “win” means? That you agreed more with what Hovind said that what his opponent said? I’m not sure how you determine the winner of these things. Anyway, science is not done by debate. It is a very poor way to study science and especially poor way to try to impart scientific information to people. Here is the thing: evolution is pretty complicated. You have to study evolution at a college level to understand it. How many people in the audience of those debates studied evolution at the college level? If they didn’t, they’re not qualified to judge the science. So what Hovind does is he gets up and tells a blatant lie about evolution, but a lie that you would have to have studied evolution to identify as a lie. And it would take a long time for the evolutionist to explain to the lay people in the audience why it is a lie. But he doesn’t have time to explain it, because the debate format doesn’t allow him the time he needs. Meanwhile, in the time he spends trying to explain why the first statement is incorrect, Hovind has already told 5 more lies. I studied science at the college level, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that Hovind lost every debate I’ve ever seen him engage in. He looks like an idiot on stage, spouting lie after lie after lie. But he is charismatic, and with the audience not knowing science, and already inclined to agree with him, he wins them over.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: You used the word "lie" 8 times above. And you declined to answer any of the questions I asked you, in order to affirm your own truthfulness on these important matters.
If you guys want to start your own blog where your "truths" can reign without question, please let me/us know. P.A. ]
Taxation through the Ages
http://www.sobran.com/articles/taxationages.shtml
Kent and Jo Hovind are INNOCENT! The FRAUD continues!
Dermot
Said this on November 25th, 2007 at 11:56am:
Joshrib,
You said:
“I hope everyone reading this will commit to reading your Bible through next year!”
As it happens I have read the Bible from beginning to end (including the Apocrypha) seriatim. Sadly, it succeeded only in convincing me in my agnosticism. I would suggest that all you believers read it from beginning to end instead of jumping around from chapter to chapter, verse to verse. Reading it that way ensures that you will not get a proper overview. It should be read critically, for are we not enjoined by brother Paul to think critically? And to think critically implies that you should think critically about everything, not just a few selected subjects.
Regards,
Dermot
Dear Dermot,
I am saddened by the fact that you have not received the only true words that can lead unto salvation. I have read the Bible through at least 10 times and much directed study besides. In contradistinction to your comments, it was through the study of the Bible that I was saved. Knowing what I know about the truth of God’s Holy Word, I do not understand why anyone that has spent enough time to read it through does not find the God of the Bible to be faithful, just and true. I wonder if you skipped Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 12, 13 and 14 which speak of the crucifixion hundreds of years before they occurred. I guess you must have skipped Daniel and the history of the world’s great kingdoms also hundreds of years before they occurred.
It appears that you have also skipped some very important NT verses as well showing you the manner in which to avoid the pits of hell that all those that reject God’s Word will not avoid, although it is God’s will that you do avoid it.
I will not lecture or launch into a tirade over your comments, yet, they do bring sadness to my heart knowing what will become of all that reject the love of God and the ransom that He has paid for the sins of the whole world. I would only hope that perhaps you would look at it again, perhaps from a different perspective. Your testimony of what is in the Bible does not match up at all with what I have found in my “critical” reading of the entire Bible several times over.
In the love of Christ with my prayers for your salvation,
Peter
Dermot
Said this on November 26th, 2007 at 12:24pm:
Paul,
I fear you are labouring under a misapprehension. I am not suggesting a limit on freedom of speech, although arguably you are by refusing to post reasonable contributions by the rationalists on this blog. To disallow serious discussion of serious topics is censorship. No more, no less. It is more reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia than of a free society. But I suppose that were we to move to a theocracy it would be par for the course. After all, Nazism and Communism were both religions.
As far as agnosticism is concerned the word was coined by T H Huxley in 1869. It comes from the Greek ‘agnostos’ meaning unknown, unknowable. It refers to the philosophical position that holds we can know nothing of things beyond material phenomena or beyond our own experience. Ignorant, on the other hand, comes from ‘ignorare’ meaning not to know. But the two words have quite different meanings.
Similarly scepticism is a philosophical position with a long and honourable tradition. It can be traced back to the Greeks who were the first philosophers. It should not be used as a term of abuse, particularly by those who ought to know better.
Finally, I must say that I am more than a little baffled as to why I should read John before reading Genesis. John came very late in the day and his memoir or account – yes, that’s what the word ‘kata’ means – tends towards mysticism. He does not have much in common with the synoptics. It is surely better to start at the beginning. As the King said to the White Rabbit “Begin at the beginning, go on to the end, then stop”. That to me appears to be an excellent principle.
Regards,
Dermot
Dear Dermot,
As a born again believer, I have tried to participate on some of the evolution blogs. On one, I was able to post twice and then I was silenced forever. I did not even try to get past PZ Meyers since my email address would have automatically tripped his well publicized filters which would likewise have silenced me on his site forever. (although I did post a reply to PZ once on CSE that was copied verbatim into his site by one of his supporters, so I was actually able to get one post on his site in this manner.)
At the time that CSE chose to “end” the evolution debate (still the most popular topic it seems) I was not one to truly support that notion, but I did respect Paul Abramson and CSE to make their own decisions on this issue. In retrospect, I do not miss on bit being called publicly a liar and ignorant every other sentence. So, limit the comments I do readily support since the maturity level of many on the opposition side was quite lacking with the most noted exception of Samphire who has for a long time sought to keep the decorum of the responses focused on the issues which I greatly appreciate. ( BTW Samphire, I have been looking into those other issues that we have been discussing and now that you have returned, I will get back with you shortly)
I do not see that Paul Abramson has any further recourse at this time than to censor most of the outlandish comments so that the Christians who wish to come to this site will not be offended. It is after all a conservative, fundamental creationist organization that sponsor’s this site, so get a grip on that reality and if you cannot deal with that then go start your own blog and harp away on creationist’s all you like, it is a free country you know. The last time I checked there are still restaurants that reserve the right to decline service to whomever they choose. CSE likewise has that right as well. Since CSE is not a government agency, I do not see Paul’s censorship of evil comments any danger to anyone’s freedoms whatsoever, it is his right to keep CSE available to the people it was intended for in the first place. CSE has longsuffered the negative comments from people such as yourself, and if they wish to end that, then so be it, it is the right of the owner of any blog to do so. Therefore, Paul Abramson editing for his audience is actually one sign that we have not yet lost all freedoms in this country. You are greatly mistaken once again. CSE has the right to promote its own views for which they have paid for. I do not believe that you pay a dime for keeping this site operating. Thus, edit away as is within the right of the owner of CSE blogs and in bringing back some decorum, I do support this new venture.
Lastly, in one hundred years, lets get together and see who was the rationalist after all. The Lord God of Israel has many times over manifested Himself to me directly that I have no doubts whatsoever about every promise He has made to me through His Holy Word and that He will keep them to me and to all who call upon His Holy name. It is my prayer that you would reconsider your position on this and other issues. You are in great error stating that we cannot know who the God of Israel is since I have known Him personally and in great closeness since 1994 as have many others. You are in great error believing that God does not intervene in our lives, answer our prayers and show Himself to us in many wonderful ways, most especially through His Holy Word.
In the love of Christ,
Peter
Some have called it censorship when Paul does not post some contributions to this blog. That is like calling it entrapment when the police park outside a bar and arrest people who stagger to their automobile and drive away. The information Paul does not post is available elsewhere or can be posted elsewhere – just not on this blog.
Freedom of speech does not mean there is a corresponding requirement that others must listen.
I cann’t help but notice that the Creationism discussion on this website seems rather one-sided as arguments against Creationism are censored away. Is the Creationist position really this hopeless as to not bear counter arguments? I don’t think that Kent Hovind would have been afraid like this to discuss Creationism.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, we are only posting the side that concurs with science now. But for over a year we let hiding-from-God-evolutionists post pretty much whatever they wanted. We have ended that time.
Note to fellow creationists, isn't this an interesting one? In virtually every public classroom and textbook in the land they censor out creation theory. Taxpayers fund the false religion of evolution at every turn. Periodic inoculations splash across the covers of Time, Newsweek, Nature, and Science magazines - claiming that "evolution is science" and "creation is religion". But we have one blog, buried down in the Internet, where (after over a year of their abuse and name-calling) we are moving on from their distractions and one of them contends: "Is the _____ position really this hopeless as to not bear counter arguments?" Simply amazing! P.A. ]
Dermot
Said this on November 26th, 2007 at 12:24pm:
——————————————————————————–
Paul,
I fear you are labouring under a misapprehension. I am not suggesting a limit on freedom of speech, although arguably you are by refusing to post reasonable contributions by the rationalists on this blog. To disallow serious discussion of serious topics is censorship. No more, no less. It is more reminiscent of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia than of a free society. But I suppose that were we to move to a theocracy it would be par for the course. After all, Nazism and Communism were both religions.
**************************************************************************************************************************
Hi all (please forgive my spelling)
I would like to point out this blog is not a free speech zone we have NO right to be here. What you say says alot about you take another look at thease that you compare Bro. Paul to thease are the worst in history they controled all info out ther
Bro. Paul only controls his “house” you can say any thing you want, any where else the net as a whole is a free speech zone.
*******
*******
I met Bro Hovind in Chattanooga I think it was his most recent viset I have been reading and praying for his and his sence I first seen his VHS tapes years ago.
I can see what has happned to him as comming to more of us, just keep faithfull to Jesus he is in control. rember the fight is against satan not any man or men. GOD wants people saved!
Bro. Harold
I was wondering if there has been any updates in the case and is Mrs. Hovind still able to be at home? I want so much for Dr. Hovind to be free. Is he able to see his family at all? He has been a tremendous help to me in my personal walk with the Lord and in ministry. My heart goes out to him. Any information you can give would be appreciated. Thank you!
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Hovind remains in federal prison in South Carolina. A few family members got to see him a couple of weeks ago. Mrs. Hovind is in Pensacola, awaiting appeal. P.A. ]
So, how is Dr. Hovind doing? Any news? Has anyone visited him lately?
Istvan
PS.: I gave a copy of The Age of the Earth video to a friend of mine, a age-long evolutionist. He never said a word about it. All he said was: “I didn’t like Hovind’s style.” I asked him: “How about the things he’s talking about?” His reply, again, was: “I didn’t like Hovind’s style.”
EndTimes:
I agree with most of your last about Paul’s right to censor this blog as he sees fit. What I do not agree with is the notion that negative comments are somehow harming the christians who come here for information on Kent Hovind. Those people are free to read or not read any comments they wish. They are free to skip any post with my name or your name, just as I skip every post by that guy who always makes short posts ending with “THE FRAUD CONTINUES!!!!”
I also don’t think that hearing evolutionist arguments is harmful to anyone, although Paul frequently says otherwise. I do think that it is rather insane to say that you encourage people to study both sides, and then censor one side. If he wants to censor one side, he can do so, but then to say that one should study both sides is over the top, even for Paul.
Dear Peter,
Many thanks for your replies. I hope that you will not mind if I deal with them together.
In the first place I read every book of the Bible (KJV) from beginning to end. I did not skip a single word. Moreover, I intend to repeat the exercise shortly. I have also read The Five Books of Moses and am currently reading J G Frazer’s Folklore in the Old Testament. So you see I am trying to learn as much as possible.
One of my objects in life, indeed my main object, is to strive to attain knowledge. But in order to achieve that one must be self-critical and subject everything to scrutiny. That is what I try to do although I do not know with what success. However, there are those on this blog who make assumptions about people such as myself, Samphire and DQ and assume we are ignorant and do not wish to learn. Such assumptions are, I believe, unwarranted. Those who make them would do well to reflect on whether they have sufficient evidence to make such claims.
With regard to the nature of this blog I do not recall any restrictions being placed on it when it first started. However, I entirely agree with your comments about some of the postings. There can be no excuse for abuse on this or any other site, and the people who indulged it in were quite wrong to do so. It must be borne in mind, though, that abuse was not confined to one side. And since the e/c debate was stopped there have been a number of abusive posts from “bible-believing Christians”.
The censorship on this site is now one-way. Samphire’s comments are edited out and so no-one can know what he said. The moderator can, however, make any comments he likes and Samphire has no redress. The readers come away feeling that the moderator has had the best of it and who can gainsay them?
That, you see, is what I find so depressing. And your suggestion that we go away does not help. Let me illustrate what I mean. Last night the Oxford Union invited to extreme right-wing people Nick Griffin of the British National Party and David Irving the Hitler apologist to speak on the subject of free speech. The invitation attracted a good deal of criticism and there was pressure to have the invitation withdrawn. The Union, to its credit, stood firm and the debate went ahead. But there were protests outside the hall and some demonstrators broke in and tried to break it up. Those people believed in free speech but were not prepared to extend the same right to fascists. I detest fascists and fascism but I believed in their right to speak and agreed with the Union in its stand against those who would withdraw the invitation. I believe that those who uphold the principle of free speech should do so regardless.
It is interesting to note that the censorship of this blog started after the You Tube affair, when the videos were placed back on. Are the two events connected?
I hope you get to see all of this although I am by no means certain that our learned moderator will post all of it. I think that I have been reasonable and uncontroversial. He may think otherwise.
Regards,
Dermot
Dear Dermot,
Thank you for a very well composed response even if we are not in agreement. I suspect that those that wished to state “you are a liar and ignorant” in ever other sentence left Paul Abramson with no recourse but to edit out those reponses. It is a great shame that the voice of a few immature individuluals silenced what had been a very evidence based debate for several months. And yes, it was not a completely one sided issue of untoward remarks. Yet I do not recall more than only one occasion where Samphire asked for a less venomous statements from the evolution side, yet, there were many times on the creation side that untoward remarks were criticized from a Christian perspective to stay faithful to the truth of the gospel. I greatly miss the open discussions that we had, yet sadly, I do not miss being called a liar and ignorant several times a day.
Thus, Paul Abramson has done the correct action of protecting the original intent of this website to promote the views of CSE. I believe that means creation is promoted unashamedly here. So, it is not a fear of people making statements against creation, yet again the militant and immature responses of a few over and over again. Thus, why should CSE publish ad nauseum childish and hurtful remarks that added NOTHING to the content of knowledge on the issue of creation and evolution. Sadly, those on the creation side have likewise lost the only venue that had been available on the internet for these sort of exchanges which I believe are useful and needed.
I pray that you will look closely at the evidence of Bible prophecy and further I truly appreciate the book by G.A. Riplinger, In Awe of Thy Word. Perhaps some of the false statements about the Bible and its authentic transmission to our times would be clarified in your favor. The Bible is trustworthy and the Bible is powerful(Hebrews 4:12) and the Bible is spirit and truth (John 6:63).
May God bless you in your further studies, our prayers are with you,
In the love of Christ,
Peter
Appended to my post on November 26th, 2007 at 3:27pm:, you added a lengthy Editor’s Note. Maybe it’s just me, but it is rather a non sequitor viz my post. Tony had described a fossil that he found. I attempted to help him identify it more specifically, and to give him a sense of where such fossils might be found in the Fort Payne Formation. Your note gives the sense that I was re-engaging in some C/E debate. I am respectful of your rules and think that I have avoided the issue successfully. So that I can learn more about the conditions for posting on this blog, could you enlighten me on where I stepped over the line.
Michael aka Ganf
PS- since it’s been about a year now, any word on the trial transcripts? I hope that Mrs. Hovind is not suffering too much with uncertainty re: appeal.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: No, no word on the appeal. ... The Hovinds wait on the transcripts becoming available so that an appeal can be filed.
Context - so many good persons think that evolution must be true and that the fossil record somehow supports evolutionary beliefs. Lately I have been adding context to some posts. You linked to a Wikipedia entry with evolutionary religious beliefs about the supposed "millions and millions" of years. I usually check links to see where they go, as some folks (though not commonly) have tried to put in strange links. Your post was a good one. I did add a creationist context, to counter the modern broad path beliefs of origins, as contended by Wikipedia.
It could be that I am not juggling that well. Certainly many of the skeptics who tune in now think that to be the case. I pray about this daily. I do not like being intrusive; I do not like "censoring". For 5 years I lived in Berkeley, CA. I believe in letting folks have their say. But some like to abuse freedom of speech. They choose volume over reason. Now we have changed the orientation of this blog, to rid it of the negative anti-Biblical voices. And I would contend that recently a few of the hardened skeptics have been exposed as actually knowing nothing about creation theory. They've never watched a single Kent Hovind video. They are positive that AiG (Answers in Genesis) must be "lying", that my web site (www.creationism.org) "distorts the truth", and that ICR and CRS just c-c-c-can't be doing good science - because their solid research disagrees with skeptical evolutionary beliefs. So ... I have repeatedly asked them to make their own blog site. I cut out their bad science, their negative replies, and I am showing them as "hiding skeptics" (which is a redundant phrase). P.A. ]
EndTimes said:
Thus, Paul Abramson has done the correct action of protecting the original intent of this website to promote the views of CSE. I believe that means creation is promoted unashamedly here. So, it is not a fear of people making statements against creation, yet again the militant and immature responses of a few over and over again. Thus, why should CSE publish ad nauseum childish and hurtful remarks that added NOTHING to the content of knowledge on the issue of creation and evolution.
If this is indeed the case then why Paul, did you completely discard my post rebutting your claims regarding the geological features on Mars? There were no ‘militant’, ‘immature’, ‘childish’, or ‘hurtful’ comments in that post, merely facts obtained from reliable resources (namely the site you, Paul, directed readers to in the first place: mars.jpl.nasa.gov).
EndTimes
Said this on November 21st, 2007 at 9:54pm:
Dear Ekkman,
Thank you for your excellent post on the inspiration of the Bible and the inspired and preserved translations. The theologians are quite busy trying to convince us that we no longer have any “inspired” Scriptures, so then how can anyone be saved by incorruptible seed as Peter tells us. The problem starts with the definition of the word inspiration. Interestingly, there are only two places in the King James Bible that has this word. As G.A. Riplinger has noted in her works, the first place that a word is used in the KJV is accompanied with a definition of that word.
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0133.asp
Thus, with the word inspiration, the context is of the Almighty giving man understanding through this entity called inspiration.
Job 32:8 “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
Therefore, in II Timothy 3:16, we find that definition applies to ALL Scripture in being inspired by the definition of Job 32:8. Yes, we still have God’s inspired word today.
This is an issue that I have written on myself and I invite all to consider these issues.
In the love of Christ,
Peter
http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide17.html
http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide18.html
http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide19.html
EndTimes,
Sorry that it takes me so long to get back with you and others but I am going through some of the worst times in my life but God is on the throne and I praise him in the midst of the problems since I know that all things work together for the good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.
As I said in my post, I am amazed at the amount of Christians who will not study the bible issue. It is one of the most important in these last days. The Lord Jesus Christ said that we are sanctified by his word so if we don’t have his word we are in trouble. The new bible “scholars” are trying to come up with a “good” bible even though from what I read none of them believe that we will ever come up with a perfect one. If they only knew that God is in charge of his word and he worked it out for them when he came out with the KJV in the English language.
If we have our trust in man then we must wait to see what man comes out with next so we can know and understand God better but if our trust is in God then we can trust the book that he has given us that has proven itself over and over and over through the years. He is a good God.
I have been reading some of your book but I just might wait till I am through before I comment. A lot of it is interesting though. I will just probably e-mail you on your page when I get the chance to do so. I am meditating on what I am going to say so as to word my comments correctly. I will continue to pray in the meantime. Have a wonderful day in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Ekkman
Paul,
“Cast out the scorner and contention shall go out.” Proverbs 22:10
The Internet is huge. Quite sadly, there is plenty of space for evolutionists. Still, they do not wish to go away. They want to do the damage right here. They say that they are just being rational, and we are being irrational, but that is just baloney. What they are doing is a wicked thing.
“But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” Isaiah 57:20-21
Istvan
thanks, Ganf..
I wish I were as educated & eloquent as yourself. I hope some of the evolutionists read your comments. I coudln’t have said it better.(who am I kiddin’!, I kudn-uh seddit thet good!!!)
Tony,
Boaz/Sardis, AL.
djhouk
Said this on November 21st, 2007 at 2:58pm:
I’m curious….what happened around 700 BC?
Dear djhouk,
Some answers are only available to those who believe God’s Word. God reveals many things in scripture in remote and seeming unlikely places for those who are faithful to read, believe and study. One of these clues is revealed in Isaiah 38:1-8. When I saw your question, I immediately thought of something I had read many times (I’ve been reading the Bible through for over 46 years). I was curious as to when it happened, so I looked it up in the Bible and noted the approximate date of the event (according to Usher) and it was soon after 700 B.C. See for yourself:
Isaiah 38:1 “In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD,
3 And said, Remember now, O LORD, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
4 Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying,
5 Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.
6 And I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria: and I will defend this city.
7 And this shall be a sign unto thee from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that he hath spoken;
8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.”
Paul Abramson mentioned in his response that some authors who have studied ancient legends of catastrophes contend that there were multiple astral catastrophies. The Bible gives one a reason to believe that these legends were caused not by the imaginations of the people, but rather, by their inability to explain catastrophic phenomena which, in fact, did occur.
There are several things (some of them unusual events) mentioned in the Bible which would have tremendous effects on our “solar system” and universe. Here are a few that come to my mind straight away:
The sun stands still for about a whole day. Joshua 10:7-14 (about 1451 B.C.)
The moon stayed for the same time period. (Same reference as above) (about 1451 B.C.)
The stars in their courses fought against Sisera. Judges 5:19-20 (about 1296 B.C.)
The sun goes backward ten degrees. (mentioned above) Isaiah 38:1-8 (about 713 B.C.)
See also Job 9:1-10 for some interesting things, such as, God spreading out the heavens.
Speaking of heavenly phenomenon, the profusion of constellation-based stories and the antiquity of the history of the constellations compared with the modern-day difficulty of recognizing the constellations points to the validity of some catastrophic event that led to some major loss to the number of points of light which make up the constellations which makes sense in light of Judges 5 mentioned above. Something to consider.
Job 26:13 “By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.”
(The Serpent is a constellation that is a decan of the constellation Scorpio.)
God has indeed garnished the heavens with the constellations.
Amos 5:8 “Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:”
One who does not seek Him until he finds Him fails to do so at his own peril.
A Pastor from the West
The editor said:
I am showing them as “hiding skeptics”
Right. You delete all my posts, but I’m the one who’s “hiding.”
Real smart.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: DQ, yet again, you need to learn creation theory before coming here to argue that it c-c-c-can't be true.
I asked you 5 pertinent questions; all on basic creation science theory; you instead retorted with a message using the word "lie/lies" eight times.
Please.
You and Samphire (who also keeps writing intended posts - questioning the Bible and creation at every turn) and others who want to remain willingly ignorant (at least as far as I can tell), PLEASE go off and start your own blog site.
Here, how about this: After you guys start it, selecting your skeptic moderator, et cetera, then we will post the link here within http://www.cseblogs.com (as I've previously offered). AND ... (at no extra charge) I will promise to join your blog and make at least 3 messages to send in for moderation during the first week. Then you or your designate can just tear my feeble words letter-from-letter, and have a great time pronouncing me and any and all creationists wrong, wrong, wrong. ...How about that?
You could have fun!
Example: (Paul writes in) "Yes, a new blog! How exciting. I am glad to submit my first entry here. Let's see, where to start?
"I wonder how you skeptics, being rational and everything, deny all the science references in the Bible? The clean-unclean rules in Mosaic Law which hold up to modern scrutiny, after all. And in Ecclesiastes we see references to the hydrologic cycle, and to deep currents in the oceans, and vents at the ocean bottom. Modern science did not discover these until the past few hunded years, nor the ocean vents until the mid-20th Century! In Job many, many interesting creatures are described, including dinosaurs and sea monsters. In Isaiah it clearly states that the Earth is round, et cetera...."
(End of my example message)
Then you could edit it!
Think of the fun you could have with your own skeptics blog site.
(An example "Skeptic Moderator" "[EDITOR'S NOTE:") ... "These are lies, lies, lies, lies, lies! So what that there are fragments of the New Testament books from even the 1st Century AD, in fact thousands of them have been found, all verifying each other. Lies, lies, lies. So what that the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Book of Isaiah matches the Masoretic Text version! So what. Lies, lies. The Bible c-c-c-can't be true. We are rational.
"We don't care that modern astro-physics of one hundred years ago bought into the "steady state theory" for the universe. But if they had read the Bible (from thousands of years ago) they would have seen (phrases like) "the Lord stretches the heavens like a curtain" no less than 17 times! Scientists were wrong (again), and the Bible was right all along (again), but so what. Lies, lies, lies, lies. It c-c-c-can't be true. And we're not hiding neither! Nuh-uh! That is not it. We are rational. We are ABOVE seeing ourselves as finite beings limited to certain dimensions. The grandeur of the universe does not impress us. What an accident. Yep, there was a Big Bang of nothing into something for no reason. Hey, and we are smarter than God anyway. Octopus eyes are much more efficient than human eyes. There we go - that's one mistake by god right there. There is no purpose to life. We do not seek The Scientific Mathematician behind all of this magnificence. ... A field of wild flowers, a nebula in space. Why, it is all but a random accident. We are rational.
"Standing tall atop a ladder on the top of the roof, fist clenched high, with a proud smirk, I wave my fist up into the air at god. Can you see a satellite orbiting above getting a good photo of me shaking my fist? How about the view of my fist and proud smile from the distance of Pluto? You would need a good lens, but imagine how rational I really, really am. Now imagine how big, and proud, and powerful my fist looks from the distance of Alpha-Centauri. Yes, now I'm beginning to show god, huh?
"Let's go further away. But first - let's pause to laugh at the Bible some more. Okay, now look at this verse: (Job 38:31) "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" These two constellations are unique in the skies (as viewed from Earth) as they are the only two visible constellations wherein the major stars are actually in gravitational relation with each other. So why were these two the ones mentioned? How could Job, living 4000 years ago, have known this? But so what.
"We are so rational that we really do not care what the Bible says. From one of the stars of the Pleiades imagine how smart and rational I am as I wave my fist high into the air at the creator. That sure shows him, huh!! Admittedly you will need a good lens to see me down there, but I sure am showing god, huh! Yeah!! In 10 years I can do it again. I am rational. In 25 years I can do it again. Yeah. I am rational. In 50 years, if my heart is still beating inside this temporary physical shell that holds my soul, I can do it again. Yes, that is right. I think you can clearly see just how rational us skeptics are!!
"So what that the Holy Bible is the most translated and most read book in the history of the world. A best seller - every year. It cannot be true. And don't call our "higher criticism" to be from the "lower nature" either; that is not it at all. A rational mind automatically thinks that chaos randomly exploding from nothingness for no reason [show broad smile here] is so inherently scientific in its composure that it dare not be questioned. Well, I guess we sure showed that feeble Bible believer Paul a thing or two, now didn’t we!!?”
=====
So again, I understand that you guys are getting angry.
I do not want you angry at me!
…But this is a moderated blog site.
DQ, you told me that if I do decide to run for political office next year that you’d do everything in your power to stop or “expose” me. Why? …Please calm down.
I ask you to study, then come back. Learn creation theory – from creationists!
Please.
P.A. ]
Paul Abramson,
What harm would happen to hear the other side of the argument (as Kent Hovind argued often when about people not wanting to hear about crreationism)? Is it because you say that evolution c-c-cannot be true? If you did not want people to debate this issue, then please do not open up a can of worms and start it. You are sounding like a politician by avoiding the questions.
Speaking of which, you may want to rethink running for office (what position?). Yes, you will probably get people like DQ and others to expose you for your creationism beliefs. But, also your connection with Kent Hovind will hurt you as well as, more important, you must be able convince the moderate public. Your claims, that evolution is evil and a lie, will not sit well with the informed people.
A rationalist does not speak in absolutes, but a literalist does. Do the research and you find the truth.
Paul said:
I asked you 5 pertinent questions; all on basic creation science theory; you instead retorted with a message using the word “lie/lies” eight times.
And then you responded with a post calling me a liar. Pot, meet kettle.
I ask you to study, then come back. Learn creation theory – from creationists!
I don’t think that studying creationism is really what you want me to do. You see, I have studied creationism. I watched a number of Kent’s videos, and even though I know you don’t believe that, you know for a fact that I have been reading this blog for months. Surely reading this blog counts as studying creationism, does it not? (BTW- I will still post the answers to your questions on the condition I have already mentioned several times.)
The problem is that although I have studied creationism, I do not agree with it. I have read every word you have written for months, and have disagreed with every one of them that concerned creationism/evolution. But if I post something contradicting what you said, you delete it, even if I am extremely polite and don’t call anyone any names or say anything offensive.
Here is a good example of what I am talking about. I read your recent post on the craters of Mars. I followed the link that YOU posted, and studied that. So, I studied the creationist’s side. Then I studied the other side, and I found an alternate explanation for the crater anomaly. At that point, I HAD STUDIED BOTH SIDES. I posted the side opposite yours, and the post was deleted. I did not call anyone any names, I did not say anything offensive, and I had studied both sides. And still, my post was deleted. Why? It met all of the criteria that you have set.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: DQ, I will answer you - in the current blog posting, put up earlier today. P.A. ]
Matthew said:
Your claims, that evolution is evil and a lie, will not sit well with the informed people.
Yeah, but Paul lives in southern Indiana, where informed people are kind of hard to find. I’m sure Paul’s message will sit just fine with the locals down there.