A Day in the Prison Life of Kent

6:00 A.M.       Awoke after a good night’s sleep

6:10 – 6:30      Ate breakfast of toast, ham, hot grits, banana, and milk

6:30 – 7:40      Had the 25′ x 30′ chapel room to myself to read my Bible, pray, play the piano, and sing to the Lord

7:40 – 8:00      Walked back to room about 100 yards away to clean for the weekly inspection

8:00 – 8:15      Read in Flyboys by James Bradley while rooms were inspected

8:15 – 9:15      Helped a fellow inmate who is a good friend and huge black man with his math as he prepares for his GED

9:15 – 10:00     Went outside to picnic area to read mail and write responsesBecause I have about thirty letters to answer, I decided to write this “Day in the Life…” as a generic response to mail and to update friends and enemies of my life here.

10:00            Listened as “Yard Recall” was announced over the PA system, which means we all go back to the dorms for all the inmates to be counted, and then to be called out for lunch in the order of the cleanest dorm first to last.  My dorm, D-2, is typically second or third.  Some of these guys didn’t have a mom like I had to teach them to clean.  There are four dorms in this camp housing about 140 men each. 

10:00 – 10:40   Relaxed in dorm reading and writing and drinking my three-times-a-week coffee — and I know about that causing babies to be born naked!

10:40 – 11:00   Waited ten to twenty minutes in line for lunch.  

The weather here is gorgeous!  About 100 of the guys seem to be Christians, so there is a lot of good fellowship standing in line or walking around the one-third mile track or sitting in the open pavilion at the picnic tables.  This camp has a nice baseball field, basketball court, four handball courts, ten treadmills or exercise bikes, a ping-pong table, a small but well-stocked law library, regular library, and chapel library with lots of good videos and books.  We also have a barber shop, snack machines, dentist and doctor, and a commissary “store” where we “shop” once a week for items from cake to tennis shoes, ice cream to glasses.   There are no fights or violent incidents of any kind here.  Everyone, well almost everyone, is friendly and tries to get along.  Many men spend their free time in recreation, exercise, walking, taking classes, reading, talking, or watching TV.  There are six TVs in each dorm’s TV-viewing room.  All are set to different channels and everyone listens with their own radio headphones. 

We have six different Christian services or Bible studies every week and a Christian volleyball game on the other day.  We also have a Christian movie every Sunday night with snacks at intermission.   Every man has a job here.  About twenty of the men walk next door to the warehouse to work every day for Unicore.  They pack and ship bullet-proof vests for police and military.  About seventy of the men go next door to work in the other warehouse that provides food for both our camp and the medium security prison with 1,500 men next door.  Some of the men also work at “Facilities” to provide services like ground maintenance, welding, and the power house.  Other men, like me, work in the kitchen or have various jobs in the camp.

Today, like most days, rather than stand in line to eat, I went into the chapel to watch thirty minutes of T.D. Jakes’ incredible message, “He Knows Where You Are.”  I had heard of T.D. Jakes before but had never heard him preach until last week.  I differ with some of his theology, but so far, his powerful preaching has been a real blessing to me.

11:20            Went last in line to eat, a BLT sandwich – very good!

11:30 – 12:00   Worked with our four-man crew in the 20′ x 30′ dish room fast and furiously to clean up from lunch, disassemble and clean the giant dish-washing machines, and clean the floor, done and out the door by 12:02 p.m.

12:02 – 12:07 P.M.   Ran to the dorm to change to my jogging shorts and eat my almost daily Snickers bar—my almost only vice. Ha!

12:10 – 12:40   Took time to sunbathe behind the library, fifteen minutes on each side to absorb Vitamin D.  

During this time I consider the ants, the ravens, and the lilies as commanded in the Bible.  I consider my goals in life like the ant, the way God always provides food as for the raven, and the way God always provides clothes as for the lily.  I also consider the heavens as in Psalm 8.  It is a warm, partly cloudy, breezy day.  If God can make the wind, clouds, atmosphere, sun, stars, and more, He can watch over me in here and you out there!

12:40 – 1:10     Walked the track and talked with a Christian brother about the things of God and prayed for my family and staff

1:10 – 1:45      Played the piano and taught another inmate, Earl, basic music theory and how to read a little music.  By the end of our session, he could pick out “America the Beautiful” and was so excited!

1:45 – 2:30      Studied in the library, reading encyclopedias to learn more and get ideas for my seminar and Dinosaur Adventure Land.

2:35 – 2:50      Walked to dorm for a shower.  In the shower I shave, brush teeth, wash hair, sing “This World Is Not My Home,” and pray for those being persecuted for their faith around the world.  The shower reminds me of Hitler’s gassing the Jews. 

2:50 – 3:20      Went back to my “room” to read another chapter in Flyboys and rest.  Some days I get a ten-to-fifteen-minute power nap.

3:20              Dressed for work

3:26              Reported for work again

3:30 – 3:40      Set up machines for work

3:40 – 4:00      Read and wrote

4:00 – 4:20      Ate an early supper of fried chicken, beans, rice, and cake Read a little more in Flyboys, a great book!

4:20 – 6:30      Worked fast and furiously again in the dish room.  The waste of food here is incredible!

6:30              Got out of kitchen just in time for mail call

6:35 – 7:05      Read carefully and tearfully all twelve of the letters I got tonight.  In my nine months in prison, I’ve only had a few negative letters.  Hundreds have been so encouraging and supportive!  It is a joy to know so many are praying for me and especially for my wife.  Proverbs 25:25!

The sentencing guidelines called for zero to six months probation for her.  The judge called the Sentencing Commission in Washington, D.C. and they also told her zero to six months probation was appropriate, but she chose to sentence Jo to one year and one day in Federal Prison.  Unless a Stay or Appeal is granted, she must go to prison on August 31st.  The judge also granted Forfeiture of the Church Ministry property to pay the amount that was claimed by the Prosecution to have been “structured.”  This Forfeiture is based on Title 21 drug laws!  Our attorneys are working to right this incredible wrong.  Please keep praying as this case goes to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

7:05 – 7:45      Finished letter to my wife.  Jo gets personal letters.  Sorry that most of you are only getting “generic letters” right now.   Last Saturday was our 34th anniversary and she was allowed to come visit me!  It was great!  My daughter and her friend, Paul, came as well.  We got to visit both Saturday and Sunday!  

I was able to make an attorney call yesterday, the first one in several weeks.  He said that the District Judge must rule on one more motion before our case goes to the 11th Circuit.  It has been nearly nine months since the end of our trial, at which time we ordered the transcripts.  They have still not been produced!  The attorneys say that this is unusual and that the 11th Circuit has reprimanded Judge Roger’s court twice and fined her once already.  Please pray for this issue as well.  We cannot file an appeal without the court transcripts.

7:45              Went out to walk the track before the 8:00 p.m. prayer meeting, but a thunderstorm stopped that, so I went into the TV room and watched T.D. Jakes’ “It’s Not in the Field; It’s in the House.”

9:00              Went to walk the track one more time, but stopped to feed the racoon and the fox that come to the fence every night to beg for food.

9:20              Heard “Yard recall” announced over the PA, so I came inside to read the CSE blogs’ comments sent to me by my office.  I wish I could give a personal response to some of those committed evolutionists!  When I get out and challenge them to a public debate, watch them quiet down!  Time to organize some of the motions filed in my case.  If you have not read the latest motions by my attorney and my wife’s attorney (all denied, of course), you should!  I do feel a little like Naboth these days (I Kings 21) minus the rocks!  God will be sure all issues are judged righteously one day.

10:00            Reported for “Count Time” – Everyone must go to their “room” for a counting of all inmates.

10:10            Prayed in our prayer circle with a few other Christian brothers

10:30            Finished letters to mail out tomorrow morning when mail is collected at 7:00 a.m.

10:40 P.M.   Read until I was tired and went to sleep

Thank you for continuing to pray for my release!

Kent

565 Comments

  1. njream August 2, 2007 12:16 pm Reply

    I love your attitude towards this whole stupid situation. Thank you so much for taking the time to type to us. I can’t wait to see you back in action, showing how dumb they are about so many simple things on purpose. You have been such a huge influence in my life. I have decided to go back to bible school, and learn all i can. So that i can open peoples eyes to the truth. thank you for being such an example of a Christian in these last days. It’s hard to find Christians these days who will stand up for Jesus, and we haven’t even begun to see persecution yet. We will continue to pray for you and your wife.

    njream

  2. ccherrett August 2, 2007 12:52 pm Reply

    Kent said:

    “I wish I could give a personal response to some of those committed evolutionists! When I get out and challenge them to a public debate, watch them quiet down!”

    Samphire, did you hear that. It sounds like a challenge! You can take Kent right? He is just a misguided nut right? You will take him up on this challenge and show the world how right you are right?

    Oh wait! I forgot you are a snake coward who hides behind aliases on the internet, who attacks a man when he is down.

    Samphire, can’t wait to see you stand up to Kent when he gets out so you can show us how tough you really are :)

    Chris Cherrett

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: "...a snake coward..."? He may accept a debate challenge. Has anyone asked "Samphire" previously? He hails from the U.K., as I recall; so probably it would need to be coordinated far in advance, etc. Another strong skeptic, Dr. Michael Shermer (editor of "Skeptic" Magazine) did accept such a challenge. See Dr. Hovind's debate #20, "How to Debate a Creationist". http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=629DVD

    Folks, please don't get too personal or negative, particularly with name-calling. Or, reserve your name-calling to use against me. I can take it. Actually, a witty retort is something I think is humorous. (If I should not, if that is a blind spot of mine, then I do request your prayers! :-) If you do decide to use some witty insults on me - keep it clean, please. This is off-topic, but in hoping to lighten the mood a little, I recently heard: "Your mama is so stupid ... that she keeps asking for a price check at the dollar store."

    Another topic change - I finished the audio book, "The Crisis of Islam" by Bernard Lewis. Excellent! It is read by the author, 4 CDs in length. It gives a historical, religious, political, interpretative set of views of Islam down through history, with particular emphasis on modern times. (By the way, it was a former congressman who had recommended the book to me. He had read it a couple of years ago, in trying to get a better grasp of this important, major world religion.) I believe that both Muslims and infidels could learn a lot from his discussion of history.

    The author states that the Islamic view of Satan is more of a "seductive" one. In other words, he tempts craftily, or tricks the unwary. When Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini called America "The Great Satan" back in the 1980s, that would appear to imply that America's influence and wares tempt the rest of the world, rather than a contention of America as being "pure evil" or something similar. It is an interesting distinction. In Genesis, we first see the serpent (Gen. 3:1) as "more subtle than any beast of the field...". P.A. ]

  3. YoCuzwaasup August 2, 2007 2:16 pm Reply

    Dr. Hovind

    I’m Glad you’re so faithful in posting your life. There are times I need the views of another human being with my own walk with God. Relationship is crucial. I mean how can you have a relationship with a person if
    You’re not honest with them, and to think about it, being honest with yourself. (I’m just talking now because I’m not being honest with my Heavenly Father or myself) And does He know this? Of course. I say this calmly because of the LOVE He has for me, and the world, but I still feel bad (Hypocritical) when I sin against Him. He has done so much for me and my own.

    Kent, This is not our home. I can wait for the day when were out of here. I bought a DVD copier 1×5 and just got home from St. Vincent WI and left some DVD’s there and will be doing the same this weekend. Got to get the kids.

    Keep the faith

    Your friend and fellow worker
    Anthony

  4. cuppettgirl August 2, 2007 2:52 pm Reply

    Hi Kent,

    I had never heard of you until yesterday when I happened to come across a google video of you speaking at Coeur d Alene in 2001. It was so interesting that I googled you and sadly the first thing to pop up was a story about you being sent to prison! The more I researched I am totally on your side, and the timing just couldn’t be better for me to learn your story, since I’m starting a Bible Quiz team at my church and the books they are studying this year are the Prison Epistles! I was so moved by your story I’ve asked the district coordinator to speak at one of our quiz meets about the persecution of Christians. Too many of these kids think of those stories as only happening in Bible times, or only happening in foreign countries with differing religious beliefs. But unfortunately it’s happening today, in America, and once they open their eyes to this realization they can better relate to the disciples’ stories and take much more away from the scripture.

    I’m praying for you and your family, that you continue to be unshaken by the Devil’s constant attempts to destroy your ministry!

    http://www.myspace.com/cuppettgirl

  5. AIM August 2, 2007 3:18 pm Reply

    I am very thankful Bro. Hovind is in a seeming safe facility and has some free time to do the personal things he wants to do.

  6. crowmagnet August 2, 2007 4:04 pm Reply

    I’ve always wanted to meet you. I have so many questions.

  7. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 2, 2007 5:18 pm Reply

    Brother Kent, great to hear from you. Jesus is Lord. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess …..

    I found this just last night:-
    It was written in Y.O.O.L. 1580 at Dresden, and appears in the Book of Concord: Concordia Triglotta:

    Gen 1,11 Let the earth bring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance the earth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but the fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will exist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth cannot be changed, so, without a special work of God, the nature of a human being can be changed neither by vows nor human law [that a woman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman].

    Secondly. And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must always remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance also with which God endowed nature does not change, and cannot be removed by human laws. Therefore it is ridiculous for the adversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning, but is not now. This is the same as if they would say: Formerly, when men were born, they brought with them sex, now they do not. No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more crafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right of nature. Therefore let this remain in the case which both nature teaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. Moreover, a natural right is truly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressed upon nature.

    endquote….. it goes on and is beautifully written, but I am retyping it by hand rather than cut and paste; and like most days my time is limited here.

    I just wanted to remind people that it was lawyers in concert with doctors who invented partial birth abortion.

    That is exactly the moral authority that I ascribe to the people who put you, and have kept you thus far, in a prison in separation of your wife.

    Partial birth abortion stands as the moral yardstick of the modern jurist.

    There must be a thousand different reasons why your incarceration is morally repugnant and in due course I hope all of them get exposed.

    “No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
    Edmund Burke; possibly the greatest ever statesman; who may have single handedly prevented the total collapse of western civilization. But then he spoke.

    cheers

    and God bless you richly. The body needs every member present and accounted for.

  8. King Solomon August 2, 2007 7:12 pm Reply

    Hey Brother Hovind I hope you are doing well. We remember you guys in prayer numerous times before our meals and at other prayer times. I am even teaching my 3 year old daughter to pray for you. I plan on trying to visit Pensacola soon and stop by the ministry and get some help material.

    I doubt you can visualize who I am but I came to your presentation at Marcus Pointe Baptist Church and asked you and Eric some questions about the gap (I am a PBI graduate and a Ruckman/Hovind-ite). One time I tried to get on with you guys at the Adventure Land but I think you guys had a no-mullet policy and I looked like Billy Ray Cyrus on Chia-Pet…just joking. I think the Lord led you guys to someone else there is no hard feelings at all Brother. I am currently a police officer in the great state of Alabama, also known as God’s Plan B for the Millenial reign…just joking again. I think the Lord is working in my life right now and he is giving me hints to not let my roots get to deep in this career because I think he may be wanting me in the full time ministry. I hope I’m not too carnal and act like Jonah.

    I hope something works out soon to where you can hit the road and start doing seminars again. I’d like to have in my future church if the good Lord allows that to happen.

    I’ll leave you with a little joke.

    Never ask a Southern Grandmother

    Lawyers should never ask a Southern grandma a question if they
    aren’t prepared for the answer.

    In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called
    his first witness, a grand motherly, elderly woman to the stand. He
    approached her and asked, “Mrs. Jones, do you know me?”
    She responded, “Why, yes,I do know you, Mr. Williams. I’ve known
    you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you’ve been a big
    disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you
    manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think
    you’re a big shot when you haven’t the brains to realize you never will
    amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you.”
    The lawyer was stunned!

    Not knowing what else to do, he pointed
    across the room and asked, “Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense
    attorney?” She again replied, “Why, yes, I do. I’ve known Mr. Bradley since
    he was a youngster, too. He’s lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking
    problem. He can’t build a normal relationship with anyone and his law
    practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he
    cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your
    wife. Yes, I know him.” The defense attorney almost died.

    The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench and, in a
    very quiet voice, said, “If either of you idiots asks her if she knows
    me, I’ll send you to the electric chair.”

    The Holy Bible, King James Version

    Proverbs 15:13 (KJV)
    13 A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken.

    Proverbs 15:14 (KJV)
    14 The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.

    Proverbs 15:15 (KJV)
    15 All the days of the afflicted are evil: but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast.

  9. BadBob August 2, 2007 7:58 pm Reply

    I am a high school science teacher. So far I have been able to teach creation science a couple years without being stopped by administration. I spend as much time if not more teaching creation science as I do going thru the textbook they make me use. Of course, I skip all the chapters with evolution. I use Dr. Hovind’s seminar notebook and his book Are You Being Brainwashed. In a couple weeks I will be going at it again. I pray I can continue to do the same as I have been.

    Dr. Hovind’s plight exposes how corrupt our judicial system has become. With the advent of Verichip we are now just that much closer to the mark of the beast becoming a reality. And there is the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming our next president. The future of America is very precarious at best. In the public schools and government all across our nation the wicked seem to be securely in charge while the righteous our at their mercy.

    Our family prays for the Hovinds daily. It grieves us greatly that our government is treating them as such.
    God’s judgment is heating up on America. In my life time I have witnessed drugs abuse, venereal and other fatal diseases, abortion, crime, rebellious youth, illegal aliens, oppressive taxation, perversion, etc. etc. etc.

    We either are headed to revival or the end. Most those that claim to be Christians are so confused about what Christianity really is I fear the latter. God is not going to bless a nation and people who have turned their backs on Him and persecute His messengers.

  10. gojo345 August 3, 2007 12:42 am Reply

    In all of your blogs you seem to be inhumanly optimistic about being confined in prison. I am a Christian, in that I believe that the only way to heaven is by faith in the cleansing power in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That being said my faith is being shaken, to say the least.

    Last year, my first year of college, was spent in a relatively small (about 4000 students) Christian liberal arts college. I was raised in a strictly conservative Protestant home. I was taught the earth was created in six days, and that evolution is a lie. a I applied to a Christian college, but they are teaching evolution as Gods means of creation. They also claim that the books in the Old Testament, specifically the Pentateuch, were not actually authored by Moses. They claim that the books were authored over time by many different groups in Israel’s history. (the JDEP or JPED theory I’m not sure which)

    I have then only a few questions for you Dr. Hovind.

    Does it matter if evolution is taught, when it can be taught from a Christian perspective? After all both the young earth and evolution are both “theories” meaning they both aren’t proven. I can understand your fight against an atheistic evolution, but what about an evolution that includes God. After all God doesn’t seem to break any natural laws in the Hovind theory, except for the six days of creation. If God can break natural law why does he NEED to use a meteorite to cause the global flood? Theistic evolution simply dictated that God got it right from the start, from the very stare i.e. “the big bang” or “the big speak”

    would you please respond in your time my e-mail is [EDITED] @ gmail.com

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Basic, good questions. Biblical Christianity - God is strong and did it right. Evolution (theistic version) god is weak and bungling. Which came first: death or sin? The Bible has one answer, evolution though another. Please watch any of Dr. Hovind's seminars or any one of his debates: http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=447DVD In a couple of hours of learning, without lots of individual attention (for the basics), you will know. P.A. ]

  11. 2ndamenduser August 3, 2007 4:08 am Reply

    Bro. Hovind,

    Our whole church is praying for you, fervently. We are livid with the injustice we have seen. Yet, we have such incredible peace that God is working some things out that only He can accomplish when we acquiesce to His great wisdom and will.

    Though we have never met, I did get to talk to you once on the phone. As busy as you were, you took time to answer questions I had about legal matters that were very helpful.

    I can hardly wait to see God work out His vindication of your situation;’ but if He decides not to wait until after He comes to set up His kingdom – well that will be just fine also. There will be a bloodbath when He comes (2 Thess. 1:7-9), so I hope some of your opponents and critics get saved before then.

    I really wish I could be there with you. Thank you for the picture of life in prison. I feel like I AM there with you. I can almost taste that BLT, see the raccoon and fox, hear the beginner pick out “America, the Beautiful” on the piano, smell the steamy shower room (reminds me of gym class). The greatest comfort of all , of course , is the knowledge that the great I AM really is with you.

    “In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them: in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bare them, and carried them all the days…” Isaiah 63:9

    May God smother you with love, grace, mercy and peace, and may He give peace that passeth all understanding to your beloved wife and family.

    In the Love of Christ, which atheists know nothing about,

    A Pastor from the West

  12. Verbal Da Mentor August 3, 2007 4:18 am Reply

    Good to here from you Kent, you’ll be out soon. Still praying for you as always. The LORD and we are looking out for you. Keep strong brother!

  13. benjaminpatton August 3, 2007 5:21 am Reply

    It is so good to hear that you are doing so well…we will continue to pray for all the things you ask and for your situation. Keep you head up and keep doing what you’re doing…good things are coming your way! Godbless you brother!
    In Christ,
    Benjamin Patton
    Philippians 1:21

  14. Jersey Girl August 3, 2007 5:58 am Reply

    Dear Dr. Hovind,

    Thank Yahweh you are in the minimum camp! For a while my husband and I were afraid you were stuck in the medium security prison, which is no picnic. We pray for you and all the inmates on a daily basis. My husband is a Federal Correctional Officer and whenever he sees all the pictures of family members the guys there have in their wall lockers it makes him feel sad and reminds us of you. He has an inmate who is a billionaire and got sent to prison for donating 5 million dollars to a charity! Apparently the IRS wanted their cut or something like that. They gave that man 20 YEARS for his “failure to pay taxes.” He’s already served almost seven years waiting for an appeal process to go through for his unjust incarceration. It turns out he was supposed to get probation or something, but the judge wanted to be a jerk. Sound familiar?

    For those of you who are so quick to judge Dr. Hovind as a bad man for “not paying taxes” remember that it could just as well happen to you without you even knowing it. That gentleman never imagined he’d get 20 years in federal prison for donating to a charity. The IRS is just a modern version of the Gestapo. Do you know they can come after you for any number of things that you would never even dream up? My husband and I had a small business that we closed last year (too much competition) and the IRS is sending us threatening letters demanding that we remit business taxes for THIS year. Hello! We closed the stupid business last year. Sheesh.

    This government is so unbelievable corrupt, you cannot imagine. When I was in the Army they gave a guy who got busted with kiddie porn less than two years. Another guy beat up his wife and got 20 months in prison. Dr. Hovind doesn’t cough up some money for the IRS and he gets 15 years. You call that justice? Only a crazy person would think that is fair.

    Keep your head up, Dr. Hovind. You will surely be released once Yahweh is ready for you to take on the world again. Until then, continue to do His work. You do more from prison that most free people do in their entire lives. With love and prayers,

    Rebecca Johannesen

  15. mtlionsroar August 3, 2007 8:12 am Reply

    Dear Kent:

    Yes, we continue to pray for your release, your comfort, your peace, your wife, your daughter, her friend, your sons, their wifes, your precious grandchildren, your staff, God’s Ministry, God’s Dinosaur Adventure Land, God’s Name, God’s Honor, and God’s will. How these difficult times draw us to Him. And your difficult times are drawing us to Him, on your behalf, as well. “…I will pray the Father for you:” John 16:26b

    God’s wheels grind slow, but they grind…

    May God continue to strengthen you, give you wisdom, guidance, and protection.

    Much love in our Lord,
    Dee

  16. darling August 3, 2007 8:37 am Reply

    I’m glad Mr. Hovind’s conditions have improved. Although why wait until release to have a public debate? I’m sure there will be plenty of people willing to participate in a public, written debate.

    Anyway, I realize that the conversation has moved on, so I’ll repeat what I just posted to the previous post.

    EndTimes Said this on August 2nd, 2007 at 8:25pm:

    “Madison’s “views” were the law of the land on taxation of the church until January 1, 1984 when Congress (Caesar) began to tax God and I ask you under what authority did they assume power over God in 1984?”

    Just because Congress didn’t do something until 1984 doesn’t mean Congress couldn’t do something until 1984.

    2ndamenduser Said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 7:32am:

    “Title 26, sec. 1 does NOT say, “There is hereby imposed on the income of every head of household…””

    It says: “There is hereby imposed on [[all income from whatever source derived] minus the deductions allowed] of every head of a household… a tax.”

    “Just because the word “taxable” appears in the statement does not mean all income is taxable or that everybody’s income is taxable.”

    But then, we know the specific definitions of “taxable income” and “gross income” from §§61 and 63.

    “As I said, I have studied the law. I am honest. I am not a liar.”

    Based on the above, I have to conclude that at least one of those three statements is false.

    Actually, that’s a bit harsh. After all, would anybody really agree that “I have studied the bible, therefore I am right about what it says” is a valid argument?

  17. darling August 3, 2007 8:42 am Reply

    <b>BadBob Said this on August 2nd, 2007 at 7:58pm:</b>

    <i>”I am a high school science teacher. So far I have been able to teach creation science a couple years without being stopped by administration. I spend as much time if not more teaching creation science as I do going thru the textbook they make me use…”</i>

    If you teach at a public school you deserve to be fired.

    I’d say the same thing about any teacher who blatantly disregarded a Supreme Court ruling.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Telling the truth should not be a punishable offense in the USA. There is freedom of religion in America, i.e. you can believe in evolution if you want. Please do not contend that such anti-God nonsense is science though and that it "cannot be questioned" just because the high priests of evolution say so; and anyone who teaches otherwise "should be fired". Again, an honest person who is telling the truth (whether you believe so or not) should NOT be fired. "Darling", please calm your words of harsh judgment against creationists. Keep the debate on the level of the TOPICS, not attacking the individual. It is the idea or conclusion of the other you should disagree with, not wish evil upon the individual for disagreeing with your particular religious choice: evolution. When you are so harsh (as you also were above, contending that your opponent was lying in a message just before this), and repetitively so, it makes me wonder how long you'd hesitate before putting on an armband offered to you, and marching lock-step against all enemies of the newest, greatest "great leader" out there.

    Learning how to think on your own (rather than being told WHAT to think by others) is important. Do not farm out your thinking, or allow others (particularly the left-wing media and our blame-America-first public schools) to tell you your opinions. "Gee, the majority says this, so it must be true." "Gee, everyone else is jumping over the cliff, so it must the right thing to do." "Gee, everyone else is following the broad path that leads to destruction ... except for those few Christians who have learned how to think on their own...."

    I expect a blast from you in response. Some teens do that when contradicted. http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm ("young people" are mentioned about half-way down). I am not a "last word" kind of guy, so respond as you will. But again, as you relate to others here - please be less personal in your replies/attacks when debating with others within this blog. He or she should NOT be fired (per the conclusion taught to you, that you ingested from others without question; i.e. you were taught WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think) for the good thing of teaching creation in the classroom.

    There are several articles on-line regarding teaching creation in schools. Here are a few:

    Should the Public Schools Teach Creation?
    http://www.icr.org/article/1094/

    Creation, The Public Schools, And Good Education
    http://www.icr.org/article/977/

    Teaching the Bible in Public Schools?
    http://www.icr.org/article/408/

    Creation in public schools
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/1102lead.asp P.A.
    ]

  18. arensb August 3, 2007 9:07 am Reply

    I wish I could give a personal response to some of those committed evolutionists! When I get out and challenge them to a public debate, watch them quiet down!

    Why wait? Why not have a written debate, one that can be posted on the Internet for everyone to see?

    A written debate would have other advantages as well: readers could take the time to consider all of the points raised, instead of being rushed from one argument to another by the speaker. The debaters could also include references for their arguments, and the readers could look those up to see whether the references really say what the debaters say they do.

    Christian Forums is already set up for written debates, so there’s even a venue, with people who have set up this sort of thing before.

    Would you be willing to do this? I for one would be very interested in reading such a debate.

  19. cbgiles August 3, 2007 10:17 am Reply

    gojo345
    Said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 12:42am:
    ——————————————————————————–
    “Does it matter if evolution is taught, when it can be taught from a Christian perspective? After all both the young earth and evolution are both “theories” meaning they both aren’t proven.”

    To say that the 6 days were more than that would be calling God a liar in Exodus 20:11-” For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 31:18- “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

    False science being taught today(even in Christian colleges):
    (The Message)1 Timothy6:20-21 And oh, my dear Timothy, guard the treasure you were given! Guard it with your life. Avoid the talk-show religion and the practiced confusion of the so-called experts. People caught up in a lot of talk can miss the whole point of faith.

    (KJV) 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
    21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

    gojo345
    Said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 12:42am:
    “I can understand your fight against an atheistic evolution, but what about an evolution that includes God.”

    “Theistic evolution simply dictated that God got it right from the start”
    Then why did anything need to evolve if He got it right from the start?

    Mark 10:5-7 (King James Version)
    5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
    6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    -&
    2 Peter 3:3-5 (King James Version)
    3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
    4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
    5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

    -and man was close to the beginning with marriage in this verse:

    Matthew 19:7-8 (King James Version)
    7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
    8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

    The movement of “Theistic-Evolution” is to meld with man, not God. “Let’s make this ole’ bible fit what we want to believe. Taking it as it is, is just too hard and fantastical to live by. We know better.”

    http://www.herospy.com/?p=988#more-988

  20. JohnLake August 3, 2007 10:48 am Reply

    Jersey Girl
    Said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 5:58am:

    “He has an inmate who is a billionaire and got sent to prison for donating 5 million dollars to a charity! Apparently the IRS wanted their cut or something like that. They gave that man 20 YEARS for his “failure to pay taxes.” & “That gentleman never imagined he’d get 20 years in federal prison for donating to a charity.”

    Jersey Girl, please provide this billionaire’s name, if he was convicted and in prison, then his case is part of public record. I’ll like to take a look at how a donation to a charity could land a person in prison. Is there more to this story or just an anecdotal re-telling of some urban legend?

    “Dr. Hovind doesn’t cough up some money for the IRS and he gets 15 years.”

    Hovind was sentenced to 10 years. As for the “kiddie porn guy” and the “wife beater”, I don’t think anyone (except, maybe, a crazy person) could make a fair comparison to Hovind’s situation without knowing the details of these cases.

    JohnLake

  21. robtzfamily August 3, 2007 1:08 pm Reply

    Dear Brother Kent,
    EVERYDAY:
    We’re STILL praying..
    STILL hoping..
    and STILL loving you & yours!

    The Roberts family
    AUSTRALIA
    (1 Peter 5:7)

  22. praybird August 3, 2007 3:50 pm Reply

    It is so encouraging to read the posts of support and prayers for the Hovinds. I am so glad to read this current post. We praise the Lord for his provision.
    We will also pray for this situation with the Judge. As she has been fined for not producing the transcripts. It appears she has a personal agenda about this, we pray this comes to light.
    Bro Kent please have the christian guys in your group pray for our communities. People are losing their homes by forclosure it is becoming an epidemic, just today in the news a mortgage company is filing bankruptcey because of too many forclosures. People can’t afford medical or dental in our area in Missouri. After checking on the internet, we found that Ohio, California, and some others are even worse with foreclosures.
    We have watched TD Jakes also, but have alot of questions. We question the prosperity teachings on alot of these preachers on TV.
    Is it okay to post questions on here about these ministries?
    Don’t know if TD Jakes is part of this group or not. I pray he isn’t.

    We are in perilous times, and troubles and trials beset us daily.
    But we know the Keeper of our Souls and he is able to keep us and lead us and guide us.

    Thank you Bro Kent for sharing we appreciate it. from Don and Brenda

  23. FuManchu August 3, 2007 4:09 pm Reply

    BadBob, you made an interesting comment.

    “I am a high school science teacher. So far I have been able to teach creation science a couple years without being stopped by administration. I spend as much time if not more teaching creation science as I do going thru the textbook they make me use. Of course, I skip all the chapters with evolution. I use Dr. Hovind’s seminar notebook and his book Are You Being Brainwashed. In a couple weeks I will be going at it again. I pray I can continue to do the same as I have been.”

    So, if I might paraphrase, you’ve spent the last few years teaching what the scientific community regards as junk science, you neglect the official curriculum, you leave out parts that you happen to disagree with, and you base your lessons on the writings of a convicted criminal with a fake PhD who routinely makes scientific errors so egregious that even his fellow Creationists have asked him to stop. Oddly enough, “science teacher” isn’t the term I’d use.

  24. joshrjb August 3, 2007 6:09 pm Reply

    Brother Kent,

    Just wanted to let you know I’m praying for you. I know you hear that a lot from a lot of people, but it’s because we care about you and your family. You’ve done a lot of good for us and you have a good heart for the Lord Jesus.

    Take care.

  25. Mark Smith August 3, 2007 7:03 pm Reply

    Keep up the good work Dr. Hovind. I pray for you and your family every day. Thank you for teaching me so much.

    1 Thessalonians 2:19

    For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

  26. Ekkman August 4, 2007 12:09 am Reply

    Jersey Girl
    Said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 5:58am:

    “Dear Dr. Hovind,

    Thank Yahweh you are in the minimum camp!…”

    Hey Jersey Girl, You said a lot of neat things to Brother Hovind and I praise God for those who encourage him. I know that it must be really bad for him in many ways, being away from his wife mainly has to be very hard on him. I know since I am separated from mine but my case is completely different than his.

    I pray for Kent that the Lord will deliver him out of the situation that he is in. I thank God that he is remaining faithful even though it has to be hard on him in the natural. God is a big God though. Even though he is sovereign, he has limited his sovereignty to man since we are created in his image. He really gives us a will to obey or disobey. When we disobey we suffer the consequences and when we obey we reap the rewards. But when we are being tried, tested as I said before then our prayers are put on hold till we come out on the other side like Job. I believe that many in the body of Christ are being tried, tested before the Lord comes again.

    I wanted to say that I believed for a while a few years back that Yahweh would work for God’s name but I don’t believe that now. Below is a good page going into detail why his name is Jehovah as the KJV tells us.
    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/jehovah1.htm

    Keep your eyes on Jesus and walk on the water with him right through the storms of life, there are many coming our way in these last days.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  27. Ramon Ruenes August 4, 2007 2:05 am Reply

    I’m glad to see Dr. Hovind maintaining a humble and cheerful disposition in light of this unjust persecution from an avaricious bureaucracy, as I am to see that the current minimum security environment of his doesn’t appear to be very unpleasant, and is outfitted with enough facilities and creature comforts to render his imprisonment more tolerable.

    Concerning his exposure to Bishop T.D. Jakes, while I don’t know a whole lot about the man, I would highly suspect that he and Dr. Hovind are on the same page where creation science (and probably most if not all other evangelical issues) is concerned. I’m fairly confident because in “The Faithful Messenger,” a multiple DVD set produced by the Institute for Creation Research, he appears on the DVD (the main feature) that commemorates the life and achievements of the late Dr. Henry Morris. I hope that Dr. Hovind can eventually watch that, and that his ministry can someday sell it, as it not only features a BBC-quality documentary contrasting Charles Darwin’s life to Dr. Henry Morris’s, but also has footage of Dr. Morris’s fireside chats with such notables as Duane Gish, Tim LaHaye, John Whitcomb, and his children (Henry III and John), as well as a DVD of Dr. Morris’s memorial service.

    Dr. Morris most certainly had a positive effect on Dr. Hovind, and I hope that from all this recent misfortune at least some good can come from all the opportunities and contacts Dr. Hovind’s made by his exterting a similarly positive and inspiring influence over his fellow inmates.

    God bless Dr. Hovind, his family, and his ministry.

  28. SC Girl August 4, 2007 5:48 am Reply

    My boys and I went to see Dr Hovind again last night. He has been in great spirits each and everytime. Even though my boys are so young (“J” is 11 mo and “C” is 2.5 years) they both show they enjoy these weekly visits. The younger gave his “I’m excited” wiggle when I pulled him out of the car, and the older whom is normally somewhat shy instantly started interacting with Dr Hovind.

    This week there were no bugs to been seen in the enclosed patio area. Dr Hovind and C looked around for ants, but there were only a few scattered here and there. Instead they talked about the birds up on the wall. The visitors area has vending machines to purchase snacks and drinks, so empty soda bottles became the toys. Dr Hovind was trying to teach C how to kick the bottle like a football, and showed him how make music with it. Last night I learned Dr Hovind knows another cool trick. He can make a low-tone whistling sound using just his hands formed into a ball and when he lifted up his pinky it changed the sound to slightly higher. I haven’t ever seen anyone do that before.

    Last weekend my husband was able to meet Dr Hovind on a Sunday visit. I don’t think they stopped talking for over an hour and most of the time they were talking about physics. Yesterday we tried to bring my folks along for their first visit. Unfortunately the visitors list did not include their names which is odd considering they received a letter saying they were approved. Hopefully this will be fixed soon and we will try again.

    Dr Hovind has asked that is anyone is within 200 miles of Edgefield, SC please try to schedule a creation seminar with Eric Hovind speaking. When the family comes to this vicinity he gets to see his grandkids. He missed them so much and says so each and every week.

    Sister in Christ to the Hovind Family and all Christians,

    SC Girl

  29. Istvan August 4, 2007 11:54 am Reply

    Great to hear that Dr. Hovind is doing well in his temporary home! I pray for his earliest release!

    Those who believe in the scientific community and not the Word of God, read this and think about it:

    ‘The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.’

    Almighty Science instead of the one Almighty God? Is this a good trade?

    Istvan

  30. Three Crosses August 4, 2007 12:18 pm Reply

    TO ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE:
    I know of a “PUBLIC” school system where the superintendent has allegedly had all of the evolution removed from the textbooks! Learned Hand, Samphire, Baliset, and DQ Get a rope!
    I haven’t verified it probably a rumor, however with the exception of one science teacher most of the school taught only the science part of evolution any way. That evolution means “change” as in to evolve a flat tire or to evolve a light bulb.

    God save us all three crosses

  31. ccherrett August 4, 2007 12:20 pm Reply

    Hey Paul,

    Snake coward is from a long time conversation with Samphire. He or she or whatever it is refuses to come out of it’s hole to tell us who it is. I have always found it strange how this thing has had so much time to come in here and smash on Dr Hovind. I have challenged this thing to come out in the open and reveal who it is so we can have a chance to look at it’s personal life the same way it wants to attack Hovind in his personal life.

    That said Paul, you say what you like but Samphire is nothing more than a snake and a coward. When It comes out it’s hole I will change my wording. Kent never hid and was always open to communication. Funny how once Kent is unable to fight that this thing comes out to attack.

    It will be great to see this thing come out and debate Hovind when Hovind is free. I look forward to it.

    Chris Cherrett

  32. ccherrett August 4, 2007 12:24 pm Reply

    Paul,

    Is it wrong for a man of God to call someone a snake and a coward? What is your proof text?

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Good question. No, not necessarily. Jesus said (Matthew 23:33) "[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” But I do not think that it should be used lightly. If “Samphire” (and most others) wants to remain anonymous in his postings, without giving his full name, isn’t that his prerogative? P.A. ]

  33. Ekkman August 4, 2007 4:34 pm Reply

    I have been debating, sharing with other “evolutionists” at other sites. I will now share some of the info with you.
    I will post a few links and quotes from those pages with our evolutionist buddies on this blog.

    The first link is a page showing over 700 scientists who have dissented from Darwinism evolution or macro evolution.

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    Also linked on that page is a page showing pages of physicians, doctors
    PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
    This is at the top of their page…
    “As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macro evolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.”

    I did a fast addition with the physicians and I figure there are over 875 of them.
    http://www.pssiinternational.com/

    Another link worth reading is “The Survival of the Fakest.” It shows some of the mind games that evolutionists have to play to keep their faith up, so to speak.

    Finally I would like to direct your attention to this last Page for now.

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

    A few clips from the Page above to get you hungry for truth.

    “We visited the web site he referenced. It said,
    According to Newsweek in 1987, “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic
    credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science…” That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. [italics and ellipsis used as on their web page]”

    700 out of 480,000? Not much but then again, who believes the majority is always right? Let’s keep going though…

    “They want you to focus on the 5% versus 44%. But suppose it is really true (as Newsweek said) that in 1987 only 0.14% of all scientists believed in creation, and 10 years later 5% believed in creation (as this survey says).

    If the numbers given on that web page are correct, the number of scientists who believe in creation increased from 700 in 1987 to 24,990 in 1997!”

    “The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation. 1
    1 Ashton, In Six Days (1999) Page 284″

    Closing with a little humor.

    “Did cars evolve into aeroplanes?”

    “This month’s web site review looks at a site I discovered that provides an interesting allegory regarding the creation versus evolution debate. The story begins “500 years in the future, there was a major argument. World disasters had taken their toll on the human race and only a million people lived on the planet, mostly in the USA.

    Man was just starting to use petrol driven transport again – cars were on the roads and planes were in the air. The big debate was about cars and aeroplanes”. The debate was whether cars had evolved into aeroplanes over millions of years, or whether they were both the brilliant creation of an intelligent creator.

    The actual debate takes place on television between two scientists. Zak Smith proposes that cars evolved into aeroplanes. Bob Williams II believes the controversial ‘intelligent design’ theory.

    From the spelling of aeroplanes you can guess that this story comes from the United Kingdom.
    In the debate, Smith discusses transitional forms of cars discovered in the shallow seas of the beaches of Brighton and Williams provides quotes from the sacred book, the 1994 Rolls Royce driver’s manual.

    The interaction between Smith and Williams and the audience makes for interesting reading and I believe the debate itself provides insights into our views regarding creation and evolution. The debate ends with Smith stating that his theory is based on solid evidence…it’s called science.”

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  34. hooray4god August 4, 2007 6:19 pm Reply

    I’m sure this has already come up on this blog but this is an interesting website…
    http://freehovind.com/index My friend, who does not support Kent, said, “The IRS better check all the people supporting Kent, and see if they’re paying taxes.” Hmmmmmmmmm

    A question posed to whomever has an answer. Why does Kent say that he has a PhD in education when its ing Christian Education…is he afraid that it will make him less credible? Also,why does his website say nothing about him being in jail?… Is Dino Adventure land open? I thought there was some controversy on whether it was safe to be there or not.

    This was interesting too… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyHuSlL3yY&mode=related&search=

  35. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 4, 2007 7:11 pm Reply

    Another one from Edmund Burke: Statesman, Essayist:

    “The wise determine from the gravity of the case; the irritable, from sensibility to oppression; the high minded, from disdain and indignation at abusive power in unworthy hands.”

    I would hope that those of us who believe in creation as it is “plainly written” in the book of Genesis are aspiring to be found among the wise and high minded, rather than those writing only out of irritation, disdain or emotional reaction.

    a question was raised obliquely by djhouk relating to whether or not anyone really “owns” a car. Seeing this question helps to illustrate principles let us consider it in some more detail.

    Leaving aside questions in this instance about the Ens Legis/ Juridical Person – Natural born Man distinction; just for a brief moment please consider this one teleological observation:

    If a “motor vehicle” manufacturer (*1) has to ask for “permission” or for “authority” or for “license” to sell the product [ie. the finished "motor vehicle"]; and has to obtain a “certificate of origin” from whom it is they are asking for “permission” then in what wise does the “authority”/ “permit issuing body” not own the produce of the “motor vehicle manufacturer”?

    I know that this is a teleological argument – but in logic, they have their place.

    I suspect there is some technical term is for this situation: in any case it helps to illustrate the point: A piece of legislation may not overtly state the effect that it is going to have, nor express its intention to have any effect other than those stated, on any group of people whatsoever, without its real application actually having that unintended or unstated “effect”.

    I would argue thus:

    When permission has to be sought from some licensing(*2) authority to either “own” something or “transfer ownership” or to “dispose” of something – then in all practical “effect” the permit issuing authority or licensing authority or certification authority is exercising a very real form of “property” rights.

    If I have to ask for permission [aka a "permit"] to cut down a tree on any property then some “authority” is exercising a form of “property” rights.

    Forfeiture or seizure of property may never have been expressly written into the legislation/ by-law/ ordinance/ edict/ proclamation/ rule/ regulation/bull (*3) – but an “effect” of transferring ownership – or of creating a joint ownership at the very least has been created by the application of the process.

    If I have to ask permission to cut down a “tree” I can well assert that I don’t entirely own it. Even if the “legal title” or “equity title” over the property is in some name similar to my own proper name.

    This all leaves aside also the effects of “registration” – a separate issue we can discuss later if time permits.

    It all merely comes about from a situation where a “certificate of origination” is a requirement for an initial sale to take place.

    “Who owns what?” can be vexing questions – I would suggest that as far back as Oliver Cromwell, men struggled with them greatly, and in the end may have put many of these questions aside as being “too hard”.

    One judge at least might simply have said “there is evidence to the contrary” – from which there is a gigantic leap required to make an assertion that an applicant lied.

    And was a jury actually called on in any instance to determine what was the “fact” or did they know that there was even a question to determine?

    I am not so presumptuous to know these things as to take away another “man’s presumption of innocence” and thus threaten the very basis for my own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    Do not ask for whom the bell tolls ……

    the answer may trouble you indeed

    (*1) I am aware that there are people out there making technical distinctions between what is a “motor vehicle” and what is an “automobile” “horseless carriage” etc.
    (*2) Some people are making distinctions as well between “license” and “licence”; I haven’t read this material so cannot comment at all on it.
    (*3) There are certainly very practical differences between each of these also.

  36. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 5, 2007 12:44 am Reply

    To djhouk only:
    I had a further scroll around the internet after writing the above notes on “vehicle ownership” and I found this:-
    If you think you own your own car I suggest you take a quick look at:
    http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/vehiclecertorig.html
    in any case one might want to exercise care in calling a man a liar – or in saying that a judge has done this.
    Unless you have the Ultimate Judge’s permission to do so of course.
    cheers
    ps. some people posting on the http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/vote.aspx?id=26902&value=1
    website have expressed concern about my usage of the appellation “Australian: ….”
    do you think I should renounce the usage of it “Australian:..” in response to the concerns they have raised as to my integrity?
    pps. I tried to post a response to my own appearance on their pages but was denied that right of reply. Interesting.
    Does that say something of the quality of the faithful defenders of Darwinian evolution? Charles “Chucky” Darwin – refined English Gentleman, might not be so impressed.
    cheers again, written from within Australia; but maybe not by an Australian if others can exercise their will in the matter;
    to one, and only one: Citizen of United States of America; domiciled where or resident where, I know not.

  37. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 5, 2007 1:48 am Reply

    Dear
    darling, August 3rd, 2007 at 8:42am

    “If you teach at a public school….”

    correct me if I am wrong juridical darling, but I thought that the supreme court ruling did not prohibit the teaching of creation but merely the “requirement that it be taught”.

    I am sure you can “understand” that there is a vast difference in meaning.

    your Learned thoughts on the matter……

    BTW, I haven’t forgotten your questions; I had simply wanted to refence and annotate. Do you ever, or have you ever written “esquire” or “esq.” iether before or after your name? Are you a member of a bar association or do you sit on a bar council?

  38. darling August 5, 2007 6:33 am Reply

    our moderator said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 8:42am:

    “Again, an honest person who is telling the truth (whether you believe so or not) should NOT be fired.”

    Here’s the problem. The Supreme Court has prohibited the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. This is the law, and the law is clear, whether you agree with it or not.
    So, if this is a public school (and, as I said, it may not be), what BadBob is doing is unquestionably wrong.

    It’s wrong legally – teaching creationism in science classes is unconstitutional.
    It’s wrong ethically – he is going against the explicit instructions of his employer.
    It’s wrong morally – if a student sues, they will win. The local taxpayers will have to pay the school’s legal bills. (And, if I were one of those taxpayers, you better believe I’d be livid.)

    As for being fired for ‘telling the truth,’ well, that’s a complete red herring. If BadBob told the truth about his intentions (either now or at his interview), then he wouldn’t be employed in the first place. He’s not being (hypothetically) fired for “telling the truth,” he’s being fired for deceiving his bosses.

    As I said, anyone who ever does that, myself included, can’t really complain about the consequences.

    “Darling”, please calm your words of harsh judgment against creationists. Keep the debate on the level of the TOPICS, not attacking the individual.

    Please don’t confuse brevity with harshness.
    The issue seems crystal clear to me.

    Suppose I were an honest high-school history teacher, ignoring the curriculum and teaching children that the holocaust didn’t happen, that Jesus never existed and that we never landed on the moon (because that’s what I truly believe). Do you still think that “an honest person who is telling the truth (whether you believe so or not) should NOT be fired.”?

    (I’m sure you see that you can’t use the “but that’s not the truth” argument without allowing me to do the same.)

    “It is the idea or conclusion of the other you should disagree with, not wish evil upon the individual for disagreeing with your particular religious choice: evolution.”

    I don’t wish evil on anyone, and especially not for disagreeing with evolution. Disagreeing with evolution is fine. Breaking the law, deceiving your employer, and opening up the public to needless expense is another thing entirely.

    I am certainly warning BadBob of the consequences of his actions in disobeying both the law and his superiors. I suspect he knows already.

    If what he says is true, and if this is a public school, there is no doubt what the outcome will be.

    “it makes me wonder how long you’d hesitate before putting on an armband offered to you, and marching lock-step against all enemies of the newest, greatest “great leader” out there.”

    I feel better about having been accused of making personal attacks now. :)

    Creation, The Public Schools, And Good Education
    http://www.icr.org/article/977/

    Quote: “Do not try to introduce creation [in science class].”

    I couldn’t have put it better myself.

    And as for the other links, of course you can teach the bible and creation in public schools – just not in science class.

    Three Crosses Said this on August 4th, 2007 at 12:18pm:

    I know of a “PUBLIC” school system where the superintendent has allegedly had all of the evolution removed from the textbooks!”

    That wouldn’t surprise me at all. A lot of school districts are minimizing the evolution component of science. Unfortunately, while it’s probably perfectly legal, it doesn’t help the kids’ education much.

  39. Istvan August 5, 2007 1:31 pm Reply

    Darling,

    This is what you said: “Suppose I were an honest high-school history teacher, ignoring the curriculum and teaching children that the holocaust didn’t happen, that Jesus never existed and that we never landed on the moon (because that’s what I truly believe).” Alas, if you really mean this, I feel truly sorry for you. What is it that you believe in?

    As to teaching creation in schools, read what professors of law have to say:

    ‘The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.’ This is an excerpt from here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#9

    When the evolution theory was taught in my high school, my biology teacher was honest enough to tell us that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and that there are a lot of controversies about it. And that was in 1988 in Socialist Hungary. She was never fired, though the director of our school was a big time Communist, a hard-headed materialist. My biology teacher was the brightest teacher in school, along with her husband, our math teacher. They are retired now, and guess what, they’ve become Christians. A math and a biology teacher. And do you know what triggered their conversion? A comic book with a title: Evolutionary Brainwash. You’d probably call that comic book pretty silly. Perhaps it was a silly little booklet designed for kids. But that made those intelligent teachers think, and after a long journey, they became Christians. Perhaps you should stop and think about what you believe in and why.

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  40. pabramson August 5, 2007 2:45 pm Reply

    GLOBAL COOLING

    One can hold a strong position on a subject, yet still be tolerant of others. I reacted strongly to “Darling’s” contention that one who teaches creation in a public school “deserves to be fired” because it seemed extremely intolerant. Other voices cannot even be heard? …. It made me think of teens given a single strong position (like the Hitler Youth or Russia’s new “Nashi” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471324&in_page_id=1770 ). They can be highly motivated and highly destructive to the host society. “The vertical invasion of the barbarians” to quote a term from Robert Bork’s book, “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”.

    If we were discussing an automobile that we found, by an unknown maker, we could posit two theories on its origin: 1, it fell together by chance. 2, someone made it. Could we agree that someone who claims “perhaps someone made it?” is one theory? If one then claims that theory #2 cannot be considered, and anyone who says so “deserves to be fired” as a teacher, then I must fear for the next generation.

    Humans are not automobiles, of course. Autos need huge factories, run on specific octanes of fuel, need mostly smooth roads, and need invasive maintenance a few times per year.

    Instead the human body is self-assembling, made of 100% biodegradable parts, consuming an astounding variety of fuels, traveling over all terrains, and some models have gone 40-50 years without any external maintenance. And future models are able to be produced from a built-in factory inside.

    Is theory #2 “perhaps someone made it” – that unbelievable? Only to one to has decided to hide from God, no matter what.

    Similarly: What if all dissension against so-called “global warming” was censured from public view? Would that be a good or bad thing? Anyone who teaches the truth that some scientists disagree – “deserve to be fired”!?

    Such an intolerant stance teaches others WHAT to think, and purposely excludes exercises that teach them HOW to think. A combination preferred by dictators and the like.

    I hope that there is finally going to be a break up of the left-wing logjam against the truth about so-called “global warming”. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

    Finally! As a tolerant person (I do hold strong positions on some topics, but I also STRONGLY believe in the free flow of information!) Let the individual decide. I am glad to see that common sense, like the new video from the UK, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” are having a thawing effect.

    I sometime speak to groups in universities. I usually remind them about freedom of speech at the outset. Speech is two way: both the freedom to speak and the freedom to listen; please do not block our freedom of speech by preventing others from hearing. And I also remind them that everyone there has had ten, twelve, or more years of evolutionary teaching, both in the schools and in the media. Is hearing about another theory for one or two hours really that threatening? If it is, then evolution is not a very good theory, is it?

    http://www.creationism.org

  41. Ekkman August 5, 2007 5:15 pm Reply

    Here is another article worth reading, the whole article is at the link at the bottom of this blog.

    “Science and Religion

    “Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally. Remember, the email from “P” challenged us,

    But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a “Bible Literalist” and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the “young earth” hypothesis?

    What has religion got to do with science? We don’t even ask our members what their religious beliefs are, let alone snoop into the religious beliefs of scientists we only know by reputation. However, we are quite confident that Harun Yahya isn’t a “Bible Literalist.” The last two chapters of his excellent 20-chapter book, Evolution Deceit, urge the reader to accept the Islamic faith. Therefore, he can’t be a Bible Literalist, but that is beside the point.

    We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)

    Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution. …”

    The above information is taken from
    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

    Go to the link above and check out the whole article.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  42. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 5, 2007 6:15 pm Reply

    hooray4god,
    why don’t you tell us if you’re in jail? and who cares if your’ve going to say something significant?
    and in all this exhaustive research your’ve been undertaking how many/much of the 7 DVD CSE seminar series have you seen now yourself apart from several minutes pasted onYouTube?
    Hallelujah2God – 4ever&ever

  43. Three Crosses August 5, 2007 7:02 pm Reply

    Dear Paul Abramson:
    This post is in response to Learned Hand calling me a liar and his/her schoolyard insults. I will not be spending anymore time on his/her education. He/she appears to be trying to anger me into returning his/her insults. It’s just some simple quotes from the preachers of his religion.
    ////////////////////////////
    To Learned Hand:
    You’re right, just like you I’m a liar. I have told lies for all sorts of reasons to get out of trouble, to save some one’s feelings, even to get what I wanted. I’m a vile sinner, saved by “THE BLOOD OF CHRIST”. In my posts to you however I have been truthful. I mistakenly assumed you might be capable of a conversation. That perhaps my opinion of lawyers was not “universally applicable” which it is not. I doubt sir, that you are a lawyer you act much to immature to be out of school. I understand that the realizations of your religion (evolution) and your superstitions (you granting infallibility to the law), are more than you can deal with. Here are some comments about your religion from some “so called” scientific publications.

    “About 360 million years ago, as any schoolchild who knows his prehistoric zoology can tell you, some adventurous fish managed to hoist themselves onto their stubby fins and crawl clumsily out of the swamps to forage for food.” Time magazine Monday, Jul. 31, 1995
    All of the below are from
    From Fins to Wings
    NOVEMBER 2006
    National geographic
    ‘Evolution is a tinkerer, an improviser [emphasis added].’Sean Carroll, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison
    “The idea is simply that you fiddle around and you change something and then you ask, Does it improve my survival or not? And if it doesn’t, then those individuals die and that idea goes away. And if it does, then those individuals succeed, and you keep fiddling around, improving. It’s an enormously powerful technique.”
    “Another is that nature is thrifty, modifying old genes for new uses and even reusing the same genes in new ways, to build something more elaborate.”
    “Yet they were the handiwork of the same genes that build our own eyes, and they relied on the same light-sensing opsins.”
    ” Evolution then used those basic genes to fashion more sophisticated eyes”
    “Evolution must have borrowed these genes in early fish and reused them to build fins.”
    “And by tweaking the growth of different parts of the feather, birds evolved special plumage for hunting”
    NATIONAL WILDLIFE MAGAZINE
    Jun/Jul 2005, vol. 43 no. 4
    Mother Knows Best
    By Les Line
    “Red squirrel females are endowing their offspring with genetic changes that may help the species combat global warming”"The most startling discovery is the rapid evolutionary response of the Yukon red squirrels to global warming, marking the first time scientists have documented such genetic changes in a mammal.”
    Yes your religion requires “supernatural intervention” and “conscious thought” and it’s not scientific. It is trying to be something it’s not. In reality it’s nothing, just a fairytale.

    With love but offended
    three crosses
    ////////////////////////////
    P.S. Thank you Paul Abramson! I do detest the insults and attacks on my person. It is a very good example of, turn the other cheek. I appreciate the advice you have offered on revealing the hiding place from God. It is not pretty to see people strike out blindly at the truth.

  44. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 5, 2007 7:18 pm Reply

    Dear Saints,
    It might be just a matter of oversight but it seems that several months have gone by without anyone honing in on this issue:

    Money Laundering

    defined: Directly or indirectly engaging in a transaction involving the proceeds of crime, or receiving, possessing, concealing, disposing of or bringing into any State or Territory the proceeds of crime…….
    The prosecution must prove that the accused knew or ought reasonably to have known that the money or other property was derived from some kind of unlawful activity…
    “Dirty money” (money unlawfully obtained) is laundered into clean and non-traceable money by passing it through the hands of intermediaries.
    The proceeds of crime may be laundered by ……. depositing cash in dozens of bank branches in small amounts to avoid suspicion (‘smurfing’) ……
    …Act… requires the bank to report the details of domestic currency transfers above specified amounts …… and all suspicious ‘transactions’…..

    Unquote:

    I would have thought that the anti “structuring” laws are designed to detect the movements of money criminally derived. I would have thought that their sole intent was to prevent people hiding the proceeds of a criminal act.

    I would have thought that someone like Bill Gates could withdrawn $ 10,001 twice a day every day of the year for the next twenty years and no-one would be interested in reading about it. He might want to spend the money in supporting “free markets”.
    I would have thought that if Bill wanted to with draw $ 9,999 on Tuesdays and Thursdays but $ 10,000 and ten cents on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays that no-one could care less.

    It would personally surprise me if any of the fortune 500 Chief Executives didn’t have several hundred thousand dollars in cash in private safes concealed somewhere in their own homes. It just makes sense. Keep a spare few hundred thou laying around in gold, silver, securities and cash just in case everything economic goes pair shaped one day: like Argentina, Brazil or Germany all experienced one certain time.

    The laws were surely intended to identify and track the movement of unlawfully obtained money. That these laws should be turned around and used against someone whose money is 100 percent lawfully derived beggars belief.

    Who has been robbed? What extortion? What theft? Who sold drugs? Who operated an illegal casino? Who has unlicensed prostitutes working for them? Who is importing rocket launchers? Who is financing a terrorist? Who is planning the overthrow of government? Who is trying to bribe a government official? Who is inciting to riot? Who is forging counterfeit bonds? Who is selling substandard food or unlicensed alcohol? Who is manufacturing cigarettes and wrongly labelling them? Who is scamming gullible investors into nonexistent projects?

    Lord Acton
    Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.

    The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual’s private rights.
    Sir William Blackstone

    unquote:

    Saints, please help me out here, am I missing something obvious. Is this the ‘insanity’ that William Branham among many others foretold 40+ years ago?

  45. Ekkman August 5, 2007 9:05 pm Reply

    I thought that I would share a little of an article that I have been reading today.

    July 19, 2007

    Withholding On The Ropes?

    U.S. Unable To Prove It’s Not Voluntary

    The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down “Operation Stop Withholding.”

    In the lawsuit, the Government accused WTP of operating an unlawful “abusive tax shelter” in violation of IRC Sections 6700 and 6701, citing the organization’s efforts to urge individuals to terminate their W-4 wage and salary withholding agreements.

    In response to the lawsuit served on Schulz on May 3, 2007, Schulz filed a motion to have the case dismissed on the ground that Operation Stop Withholding is not only fully protected by the First Amendment (including the Petition clause), it is protected because We The People organization is educating People about the withholding laws as they are currently written and which expressly provide that such agreements are voluntary.

    The Government’s lawsuit has asked the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting WTP’s efforts to educate Americans about the legal termination of private withholding agreements. WTP’s efforts rely on “black letter” law which clearly establishes that Withholding Agreements (W-4s) are voluntary and that a worker can — at any time — terminate his W-4 by simply notifying the company that he no longer gives his permission to the company to withhold from his pay.

    The Government finds itself in a very tough spot.

    On one hand, it is asking the Court to shut the WTP program down, but on the other hand, neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.

    (continued…)”

    The rest of the article is at

    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/#LatestNews

    Give it “a read” and some thought too. In other words, really read it thoroughly.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  46. Harriet August 5, 2007 9:25 pm Reply

    I appreciate the update on the daily life you experience, Brother Kent!

    The SC girl is so privileged to be able to regularly visit you! I am sure your family longs to see you, wishing you were still in FL!

    I’ll update you as soon as we get home, concerning our “Creation Vacation” which you inspired. The grand finale was the GRAND CANYON but we were thrilled to stop in at Glen Rose, TX, Carl Baugh’s Creation Evidence Museum on our way out to Arizona. We LOVED seeing the human footprint inside the dinosaur footprint! This fossil footprint makes the evolution theory look silly.

    Moreover, the vastness of the Grand Canyon, and the comparative puny Colorado River surely makes [one*] evolution theory the joke of the millenium! The *evolution theory which proposes that the Colorado River cut out the Grand Canyon over millions of years still has me ROTFLOL!!!!

  47. Joshua Berndt August 5, 2007 10:08 pm Reply

    Dear Editor, I see many using special features like smilies, etc. How are they doing this? Are they merely typing in the text form of a smiley and then you or the program is converting it? Or whose smilies are they? AOL, Yahoo, Hotmail, Jimmy the mime’s?

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: They seem to get interpreted from the text, like Word does unless you turn off that bug/feature. I will put a few here, from typed text. Let's see if they get converted, or come out as the plain text that I typed them in: :-) :-( ;-) 8^0 P.A. ]

    http://www.homestead.com/GodsGospel/GodsGospel.html

  48. Joshua Berndt August 5, 2007 10:08 pm Reply

    Also, how do I get a Gravatar?

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: I am unfamiliar with them. I would go to either Wile E. Coyote's "A.C.M.E. Gravitar Sales, Inc." or to: http://site.gravatar.com/ for more info. P.A. ]

    http://www.homestead.com/GodsGospel/GodsGospel.html

  49. CreationCD August 6, 2007 12:18 am Reply

    Dear Dr. Hovind,

    Thank you for your continued posts. I’m glad you get to read ours and are still in good spirits.

    It’s good to know you are well in body and spirit. I thank God that He has sustained you. I pray that your continuing faith is a witness to others.

    1 Peter 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be,
    ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

    1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of
    gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise
    and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

    Keep going, there are many of us praying for you and your family.

    1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God
    commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful
    Creator.

    Certainly some of the persecution and hatred that Jesus warned us of has happened to you.

    Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
    shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

    Remember to forgive those that are attacking both you and your family …

    Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
    do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
    and persecute you;

    I’d like to leave you with some words from the hymn “Sweet Hour of Prayer” by William Walford, a poor blind preacher. I enjoy singing this before my prayer walk. The words are from http://www.cyberhymnal.org which seems to be allowed.

    Sweet hour of prayer! sweet hour of prayer!
    Thy wings shall my petition bear
    To Him whose truth and faithfulness
    Engage the waiting soul to bless.
    And since He bids me seek His face,
    Believe His Word and trust His grace,
    I’ll cast on Him my every care,
    And wait for thee, sweet hour of prayer!

    Seek His face.
    Believe His word.
    Trust His Grace.
    Wait on Him.

    We’re getting ready to pass out your DVD’s at the local high schools again this year.

    Wish you were out preaching, but God will do things His way, in His time, and to His glory.

    Doug Hove

  50. CreationCD August 6, 2007 1:46 am Reply

    – This Comment may have inadvertently been submitted twice –
    – Please check and delete this copy if needed –

    Paul Abramson,

    Do you ever listen to the introduction to your own truth radio show?

    http://www.truthradio.com/archives.php

    On August 1st, in the MP3 archive, just prior to your show Richard Palmquist told a good story that might answer some of DQ’s challenges on this site. This is the story, shortened a bit because I’m a slow typist and also to conserve space.

    A Professor challenges his students, “Did God create everything?”

    Student 1, “Yes, he did. God created everything.”

    Professor, “Well, if God created everything then God created evil. Evil exists, and according to the principle that our works determine who we are then God is evil.”

    The first student became quiet before such an answer.

    The Professor quite pleased with himself boasts, “You see, I have proven once more that the Christian religion is a myth.”

    Student 2 raises his hand and says, “Can I ask you question professor?”
    “Does cold exist?”

    Professor, “Of course it exists, have you never been cold?”

    Student 2, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we call cold is in reality the absence of heat. We can measure the energy that a body or object possesses as heat but we cannot measure cold. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat; matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. So cold does not exist, men created the word cold to describe the absence of heat.”

    Student 2 continues, “Sir, does darkness exist?”

    Professor, “Of course.”

    Student 2, “Again sir, the laws of physics disagree with you. Darkness is the absence of light. We can study light, measure its wavelength, intensity and speed, but not darkness. Darkness is a term invented by man to express a state where no light is present.”

    Student 2 continues, “Sir, does evil exist.”

    Professor, “Of course, we observe evil every day in man’s inhumanity to man, in crime and violence whose manifestations are in fact evil.”

    Student 2, “No sir, evil does not exist, at least unto itself. Evil is the absence of God. Like cold or darkness it is a word man uses to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith and love which exists like light and heat, evil is what happens when man does not have God’s love in his heart. Evil is like the cold that comes when there is no heat and the darkness that comes when there is no light.

    For those of you who liked that story, have you read these Chick Comics?:
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp

    About the same show, I wish you had talked more about what is going on at CSE and DAL while you were there and not have gotten off topic so much. I had a couple of others at my workplace who gathered around the speakers when you said you’d be talking about what is currently going on with Dr. Hovind and his ministry. Not to mention I was on the edge of my seat.

  51. CreationCD August 6, 2007 2:30 am Reply

    Dear Paul Abramson,

    Thomas Heinz, the guest speaker on your SMART hour show Friday, August 4th, did a good job talking about molecular machines in cells.

    http://www.truthradio.com/archives.php

    Here are some good links to videos showing animations of some of these machines.
    Please look at them.

    The bacterial flagellum
    http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/files/011a.wmv

    ATP Synthase
    http://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/movie.htm
    http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/movs/synthase.mov
    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_ATPase_flv.html

    The Inner Life of the Cell
    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html

    The Myosin Family
    http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_myosin.html

    DNA Transcription
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQClpqDBlSs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk

    DNA Replication
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9RjNNfgaEQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8NHcQesYl8

  52. Jersey Girl August 6, 2007 7:44 am Reply

    JohnLake,

    Well I’m certainly glad to hear Dr. Hovind got only ten years, instead of 15! Guess everyone has typos, now don’t they? I am not at liberty to give you the inmate’s name that I spoke about, because my husband never told me. He is not at liberty to disseminate personal information on the men that he works with, since that would be a breach of trust. This gentleman took the time to relate his story to a correctional officer (the enemy) and it would be pretty messed up if my husband went around blabbing his name all over the place. Why do you need his name so bad anyway? There are countless examples of people in prison for over ten years because they angered the IRS, do a search yourself, perhaps you might find this information on your own. Also, I think it would be highly immoral of me to put someone’s name on a public blog that also discusses how much money they have. Can you imagine the problems that could cause for him? He’ll get out of prison and discover that he ID has been stolen while he was incarcerated!

    If you don’t want to believe what I say, that’s fine with me. It doesn’t matter anyway, I wasn’t talking to you personally, I was talking to all the people who want to defend the IRS all the time. If you still want to know, try googling it. The guy was probably in the news a bit.

    Rebecca

  53. Learned Hand August 6, 2007 8:39 am Reply

    Three Crosses,

    Thank you for your intemperate response. I’ve tried to submit an additional response on the prior thread, but it was rejected. I assume, given the moderator’s willingness to tolerate dissent, that’s because the thread was closed once this one opened, although others seem to have been able to post there since my last attempt.

    I’ll note that you are, again, lying about science. Evolutionary theory does not require conscious thought on the part of any individual, and nothing in any article you’ve cited suggests otherwise. Rather than admit your egregious misunderstanding, you (like EndTimes on the prior thread) resort to religious rhetoric to justify dishonesty and ignorance. It’s OK to be a liar, you suggest, because everyone lies sooner or later. That doesn’t excuse willful and repeated deceit, however. You aren’t just mistaken – your error has been pointed out, but rather than study the science and admit that you don’t understand evolutionary theory, you simply repeat your error over and over again. I assume you learned from Mr. Hovind that you can say whatever you want to an audience that’s bound by religious conviction to believe you, even when the facts are clearly to the contrary. From you’re and Mr. Hovind’s behavior, I surmise that creationists would rather <i>look</I> correct than <i>be</I> correct, because ideological conformity is more important than honesty. (How much harder scientists have to work! Their peers don’t accept factual claims on faith, but rigorously test them for factual accuracy.) Let’s clearly lay out the facts: <b>the theory of evolution does not require an individual’s conscious thought.</b> Your claims to the contrary reflect your abject and appalling ignorance of even the most basic biology. Your insistence on the point reflects your ideological goals – you’re willing and eager to be dishonest and ignorant, as long as it serves the faith. How shallow that faith must be, that it fears honesty.

    Australian,

    Once again, like Three Crosses, you speak out of ignorance. I assume that you also prefer the mere appearance of wisdom to the effort of actually studying the field in which you want to appear wise.
    <i>I would have thought that the anti “structuring” laws are designed to detect the movements of money criminally derived. I would have thought that their sole intent was to prevent people hiding the proceeds of a criminal act.</I>

    That’s because you don’t understand the law. It’s also intended to prevent people from committing criminal acts, as Mr. Hovind did when he violated 26 U.S.C. § 7202, as determined by a jury of his peers.

    <i>I would have thought that someone like Bill Gates could withdrawn $ 10,001 twice a day every day of the year for the next twenty years and no-one would be interested in reading about it. He might want to spend the money in supporting “free markets”.
    I would have thought that if Bill wanted to with draw $ 9,999 on Tuesdays and Thursdays but $ 10,000 and ten cents on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays that no-one could care less.</I>

    He can do that. Anyone can withdraw any amount of money they want, assuming they have it in the bank, if their motive is to support free markets or do any other lawful thing. If you withdraw $9,999 in order to avoid a transaction report that would be created for an above-$10,000 withdrawal, though, you’ve violated 31 U.S.C. § 5324. Motive can be hard to prove; one way for the prosecution to do it is to show, for example, that Mr. Hovind was paying his employees in cash to avoid incriminating paperwork, and that regular transaction reports would call attention to his criminal actions. If you’re clearly avoiding transaction reports to help cover up criminal action, the jury will likely assume that your motive in withdrawing $9,000 was to evade the reporting requirements. The jury in Mr. Hovind’s case must have thought it was pretty clear; I think they only deliberated for a few hours, which is not very long at all with so many criminal counts on the indictment.

    <i>It would personally surprise me if any of the fortune 500 Chief Executives didn’t have several hundred thousand dollars in cash in private safes concealed somewhere in their own homes. It just makes sense. Keep a spare few hundred thou laying around in gold, silver, securities and cash just in case everything economic goes pair shaped one day: like Argentina, Brazil or Germany all experienced one certain time.</I>

    I’m sure that one or two of them are suitably eccentric. Most got to be F500 CEOs by being extremely rational with money, however. The vast majority would probably see a few hundred thousand dollars as useful capital that could be invested to their own benefit, rather than a safety blanket to be stashed under a mattress. Not being a CEO, or having piles of cash to dispose of, I wouldn’t know.

    <i>The laws were surely intended to identify and track the movement of unlawfully obtained money. That these laws should be turned around and used against someone whose money is 100 percent lawfully derived beggars belief.</I>

    You’re wrong about the intentions of the law; as I said, it’s also intended to prevent people from committing crimes like Mr. Hovind’s in the first place. But let’s not pretend that his money was “100 percent lawfully derived.” Part of his money was proceeds that were due to the public as tax money, both on his own account and that of his employees. He kept that money in clear violation of the law, again, as determined by a jury of his peers.

    Ekkman,

    It’s an interesting article, but I’m dubious as to its accuracy. I find that tax protesters are unable or unwilling to honestly report legal news – see, for instance, all the articles screaming that the recent case in Louisiana proved that the income tax is voluntary. (It didn’t, of course.) That article makes lots and lots of very strong claims, mostly about how the government is in trouble… but it doesn’t prove any of them. The case is still ongoing. The article looks like typical bluster that any litigant might write about their ongoing case. After all, every party in every trial is 100% correct in their own minds, and destined to prevail. It’s important to note that the trial is not about whether withholding is voluntary – I doubt tha court will ever approach that issue. It’s about the First Amendment and “prior restraint.” Generally, the government can’t ever stop someone from saying something before they actually say it, even if they could punish that person for saying it afterwards. As a civil libertarian, I wouldn’t mind if the protesters won that case, even though they may be advocating a crime.

    Finally, I’m glad to hear that Mr. Hovind’s prison experience has been so mild.


    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    There was one double-post that I may have accidentally deleted both of them! That could have been yours. I did not look at the name, but there was a particular message in the "spam" box because it was submitted twice. I have to manually retrieve them or they get automatically deleted. I hope that you SAVED your message so that you can send it in again. I do apologize if that was your message. P.A. ]

  54. Geno August 6, 2007 9:20 am Reply

    Jersey Girl
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 7:44am:
    ——————————————————————————–
    I am not at liberty to give you the inmate’s name that I spoke about, because my husband never told me.
    ********
    Geno:
    So we cannot verify the story. In other words, we should treat it like any other “my brother has a friend who knows someone who….” type of “legend”.
    ********
    ********

    Jersey Girl:
    He is not at liberty to disseminate personal information on the men that he works with, since that would be a breach of trust. This gentleman took the time to relate his story to a correctional officer (the enemy) and it would be pretty messed up if my husband went around blabbing his name all over the place. Why do you need his name so bad anyway?
    ********
    Geno:
    The names of convicted felons are a matter of public record. We need the name so we can verify the story.
    ********
    ********

    Jersey Girl:
    There are countless examples of people in prison for over ten years because they angered the IRS, do a search yourself, perhaps you might find this information on your own.
    *****
    Geno:
    It’s not my job to do the research to support your claims. You make a claim, you support it.
    ******
    ******

    Jersey Girl:
    Also, I think it would be highly immoral of me to put someone’s name on a public blog that also discusses how much money they have. Can you imagine the problems that could cause for him? He’ll get out of prison and discover that he ID has been stolen while he was incarcerated!
    ******
    Geno:
    It is not highly, or even slightly “immoral” to discuss matters of public, legal record. If this person really exists, the ID thieves are already all over it.
    *******
    *******

    Jersey Girl:
    If you don’t want to believe what I say, that’s fine with me. It doesn’t matter anyway, I wasn’t talking to you personally, I was talking to all the people who want to defend the IRS all the time.
    ********
    Geno:
    Don’t misunderstand me. I’m no fan of the IRS. But I have learned, that just like anyone else, if you work with them, they will work with you. Mr. Hovind’s problem is that he has a documented history of something like 20 years of open combat in which he claims to be exempt from the very same taxes the rest of us pay… and he has not the slightest hesitation in lying to avoid payment of his taxes. If you want to argue that one, then just ONE person on this list, PLEASE tell me where the “Florida Republic” is located.

    Until some Hovind supporter is able to do that, I have absolutely no sympathy for him.
    *********
    *********

    Jersey Girl:
    If you still want to know, try googling it. The guy was probably in the news a bit
    **********
    Geno:
    Maybe. But it still isn’t my job to do the research to support your claims.

  55. Geno August 6, 2007 10:14 am Reply

    Istvan
    Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 1:31pm:
    ——————————————————————————–
    As to teaching creation in schools, read what professors of law have to say:

    ‘The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.’ This is an excerpt from here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#9
    *************
    Geno:
    Why not read the ACTUAL ruling by the USSC? It’s probably not a whole lot longer than ARN’s “guidebook”:
    Held (1)
    (b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act’s primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594.
    …….
    Furthermore, the goal of basic “fairness” is hardly furthered by the Act’s discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution. 7 While requiring that curriculum guides be developed for creation science, the Act says nothing of comparable guides for evolution. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 17:286.7A (West 1982). Similarly, resource services are supplied for creation science but not for evolution. 17:286.7B. Only “creation scientists” can serve on the panel that supplies the resource services. Ibid. The Act forbids school boards to discriminate against anyone who “chooses to be a creation-scientist” or to teach “creationism,” but fails to protect those who choose to teach evolution or any other noncreation science theory, or who refuse to teach creation science. 17:286.4C.
    …..
    The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. [482 U.S. 578, 597] The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is

    Affirmed.

    Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=&graphurl=&court=US&case=/us/482/578.html
    ^^^^^^^^^^^ END OF USSC COMMENTS FROM EDWARDS V, AGUILLARD ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Geno resumes:
    The Court also cites a 5th Circuit Court Ruling (McLean v. Arkansas) establishing that creation “science” is uniquely the Biblical creation account and is supported by those specific religious beliefs, rather than scientific research.

    The teacher should be fired because:
    1) He is in clear violation of a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in that he is attempting to advance, in his public school class, what the Supreme Court has already ruled to be a religious belief.
    2) Without knowing what state he is from, the odds are that he is in violation of State mandated standards in the subject area he is teaching. (I say this, because I teach in Oklahoma. Our standards do not use the “e-word”, but they do require teaching evolution. The standards simply state it differently. Most state standards for biology require the teaching of evolution in some way.)
    3) He is probably also in violation of his states “code of conduct” for teachers. (Again, without knowing exactly what state this teacher is from, I cannot state that with 100% certainty, but again, most states have ethical rules that will cover this situation.

    If he wants to teach that in a private, or religious school, fine.
    ********
    ********

    Istvan:
    When the evolution theory was taught in my high school, my biology teacher was honest enough to tell us that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and that there are a lot of controversies about it.
    ********
    Geno:
    After I was threatened with termination from my public school teaching job for teaching evolution, I developed a little “speech”, I would give my students before the evolution section. It went something like:
    “We are about to enter an area that may be in conflict with the religious beliefs held by some of you. You are not required to believe or accept this material. You are completely free to walk out the door of this classroom and say the material is a bunch of “crap” (high school students now use this word freely) and it will not impact your grade in any way. However, this is a science class and IN CLASS, you will be expected to be able to tell me what science says and why science says it.”

    “We will discuss evolution as:
    1) Descent with modification (not in dispute from anyone except the extent to which the modifications can accumulate).
    2) Natural selection (again, not in dispute from anyone).
    3) We will NOT discuss human evolution. (If asked why, I will explain that it is to much of a politically charged issue with the local churches. )
    4) We will NOT discuss the origin of life. This is because (a) evolution takes place only after life exists and (b) ALL…. I repeat ALL… theories on the origin of life are, from a scientific standpoint, speculative.

    At least I didn’t get any more threats of termination for teaching state-mandated material.
    *********
    *********

    Istvan:
    And that was in 1988 in Socialist Hungary. She was never fired, though the director of our school was a big time Communist, a hard-headed materialist. My biology teacher was the brightest teacher in school, along with her husband, our math teacher. They are retired now, and guess what, they’ve become Christians. A math and a biology teacher. And do you know what triggered their conversion? A comic book with a title: Evolutionary Brainwash. You’d probably call that comic book pretty silly. Perhaps it was a silly little booklet designed for kids. But that made those intelligent teachers think, and after a long journey, they became Christians. Perhaps you should stop and think about what you believe in and why.
    **********
    Geno:
    I’m among the 70-80% of evolutionists (according to multiple Gallup polls) who believe evolution to be a process of creation used by God.

    (Note: Clever of Mr. Hovind to state his $250,000 “challenge” in such a way that it automatically excludes 70-80% of those who accept evolution by requiring them to renouonce their belief in God.)

  56. Geno August 6, 2007 11:03 am Reply

    Some members have indicated they support Setterfield’s “c-decay” as an explanation of our abiliity to directly observe objects billions of light years distant in a universe only a few thousand years old.

    The first of these was our Australian friend, Philip George who argued that there is mounting evidence that the speed of light is not constant. First, let me point out that when we speak of the speed of light being constant, we are speaking of it in a vacuum. Experiments with light have allowed us to speed it up (in a chamber of specially treated cesium) and slow it to a dead stop (using lasers and other methods). Howver, there is no evidence that intergalactic space consists of much except a vacuum.

    Now, I will agree that there has been a report, interestingly enough, by an Australian, named Davies and published in the journal “Nature” 8/02 (IIRC). In that paper, Davies reported finding a change in the speed of light from distant galaxies of less than 0.001%.
    Unfortunately, for YEC, the AVERAGE change necessary in the speed of light is something over 200,000,000%. So, what we have here is 0.001% down, 199,999,999.999% to go. I’m not terribly concerned.

    As for Setterfield. First, we have the Creationist Ministry Answers-in-Genesis which discusses c-decay this way:
    “The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not. In short, none of the theory’s defenders have been able to answer all the questions raised.”
    Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

    In fact, AIG lists changing speed of light specifically as “arguments that are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use” Link:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

    Here is a brief outline of Setterfield’s problems:
    First, he starts out by proposing that the speed of light was 10^10 (that’s 10 billion) times faster at creation then now. Immediately, he runs into Einstein’s “E=mc^2″. If light is 10 billion times faster, that would mean the energy output of the sun would be 10^20 (a hundred billion billion) times greater. Now, I haven’t done the calculations, but I think I can safely state that if the sun were putting out a hundred billion billion times the energy it does now, Earth would quickly be vaporized. In fact…. probably the entire solar system would be vaporized.

    So, Setterfield needs a “fix”. Since Einstien is so simple and elegant, the only place Setterfield can fix his problem is by decreasing mass. This means that if the speed of light were 10^10 times greater, then mass must be 10^20 (10^10 squared) times smaller. Notice, Setterfield now changes not only a constant “c”, but an intrinsic property of matter, mass. In order to keep the energy output of the Sun constant, the mass of the Earth and sun would be a hundredth of a billionth of a billionth what it is today. We won’t even go into how quickly the sun would exhaust its fuel at that mass. The problem now is with gravity. The force of gravity is expressed as F(g)=Gm1m2/(r^2). In words, the force of gravity (F(g)) equals the gravitational constant (G) times the product of the masses of the objects (m1 and m2) divided by the distance between them squared (r^2). Since mass is now 10^(-20) of what it was, in order for the force of gravity to remain constant (holding all objects in their current orbits), the gravitational constant must also change. The change in “G” to maintain constant gratity is 1/(m1*m2) or 1/(10^(-20)*10^(-20)) or 1/(10^(-40)). We end up with a gravitational constant “G” that is 10^40 or ten thousand trillion trillion trillion times larger. Now Setterfield requires changing “c” by a factor of ten billion, an intrinsic property of matter (mass) by a factor of a hundred billion billion, and another constant “G” by ten thousand trillion trillion trillion.

    These are not trivial changes. They are HUGE. At some point, one’s BS detetector should at least begin to wake up.

    But wait ! ! ! We aren’t finished yet. Since Setterfield seeks to keep Earth in the same orbit, he must deal with the laws of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum. Here’s the situation KE= (mv^2)/2 while momentum = mv. So, if mass is 200 times smaller, KE is 100 times smaller, and velocity MUST increase 10 fold to maintain the law of Conservation of Energy. On the other hand, if mass is 200 times smaller, in order to maintain the law of Conservation of Momentum, the velocity will need to be 200 times greater. In other words, in order to maintain BOTH the law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy,the velocity of an object will need to change by different amounts at the same time. This is not possible.

    C-decay simply doesn’t fly.

  57. Three Crosses August 6, 2007 11:04 am Reply

    To End Times:
    Thank you for your posts in general. I enjoy reading them. I know from personal experience how frustrating it can be when some blind person starts telling you “black is white, white is black and could you help me across this zebra crossing?”. I have a real problem not returning insults with insults, but God has blessed me with a “help meet” to keep the balance. I have several close friends who are physicians some have been very influential in my Christianity. I would like to offer you my appreciation. To be deceived seems like a tragedy when you are not. When you are deceived you think everyone else is crazy, or you hope they are! I have to keep reminding myself it’s hard to remember being blind. As I get older all those old cliches seem to take on fresh meaning “you can lead a horse, all that shines is not etc…..”. I have prayed not to dwell on deceivers telling me they’re honest, moral and ethical. They are blind to the wisdom of “why do they have to tell me they’re honest?”. Every car dealer and accident lawyer on television seems to tell me how honest they are. One accident lawyer (Dean Boyd) even magically steps out and keeps his clients from being hurt by stopping a car with his hand in his commercial. You don’t need to respond to this I can see you are a busy man. You mentioned how I became a Christian I’d like to answer that “God chose me”. Thank you so much may God bless and keep you!
    Mr. Cross

  58. Geno August 6, 2007 11:19 am Reply

    Ekkman writes:
    We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution?
    *******
    Geno:
    Most scientists I know of who are YEC openly state that evidence conflicting with their YEC interpretation of Genesis is “invalid”. In fact, some of the major YEC organizations used to specifically state that in their statement(s) of faith and/or mission statements.

    I’ve seen the list of 600-700 scientists who reject evolution. For the information of those who are impressed by this, the National Center for Science Education started a “tounge in cheek” response known as “Project Steve” (named for Steven Gould who had passed away at about the time the list was started. Project Steve now has over 800 signatures. Since the name “Steve” (and its derivitives) represent about 1% of the population, these “Steve’s” represent some 80,000 scientists supporting evolution. So, briefly…. I’m not impressed by the list(s) of creationist scientists.

    Also, there is an entire organization of scientists who are Christians and who accept evolution. Link: http://asa3.org/
    ******
    ******

    Ekkman:
    (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)
    ***********
    Geno:
    Most evolutionists believe in God. I suspect all atheists are evolutionists. After all, they have no alternate theory. This is confirmed by those Gallup polls which typically show 10% of the total population believe evolution took place without input from God. Ten percent is the approximate number of atheists in the population, IIRC.

  59. Geno August 6, 2007 11:35 am Reply

    Australian Phillip-George wrote:
    geno; “based on (2)” or based on (b); you’ve said something confusing:-

    I think djhouk/ geno your comments are mistaken. could you please just quote directly how this “judge” used the specific word “perjury”

    **************
    Geno:
    Look, I’m not going to get into a semantic hair splitting game over what constitutes “perjury”. I’ll simply tell you how we, as Americans, take this kind of legal document.

    In this country, when we sign a legal document that says: “I affirm the previous is correct and complete under penalty of perjury” (Or, “words to that effect” ) It means that if we say we are residents of some entity that does not exist (like the “Florida Republic”), we are committing perjury. It means that if we claim we do not own property when we do, we are committing perjury. It means that if we withold information, we are committing perjury.

    In other words, Mr. Hovind lied all over his bankruptcy papers. (Remember, the issue is NOT the bankruptcy. I have one of those and I filed the same papers Mr. Hovind did and, interestingly enough, at about the same time. The difference is that I was honest on my papers. Mr. Hovind was not.

  60. Geno August 6, 2007 12:10 pm Reply

    Three Crosses
    Said this on July 26th, 2007 at 1:05am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Genesis 1:3 KJV
    ************
    Geno:
    My interpretation…. “Big Bang”.
    ************
    ***********

    Three Crosses:
    To Geno: I Guess God, might not have wanted to wait 13+ Billion years. So he spoke it into existence.
    ************
    Geno:
    We agree. We simply disagree as to when. Besides, what’s a mere 13 billion years to an eternal God? Nothing.
    ************

    Three Crosses:
    Your explanation doesn’t make as much sense as the biblical explanation to me. Your explanation can also not be verified scientifically (or at least not until we are all long gone.)

    I don’t understand how End Time’s explanation is bad theology he gave you an answer from a biblical point of view, he may also point out that the Bible speaks of us losing stars.
    ************
    Geno:
    You really should have read the AIG comments. They explained it pretty well. Simply stated, under End Time’s “explanation”, any event we observe in the sky past 6000 light years simply never happened and the object never existed. That makes God a liar in the heavens themselves.

    Here they are again:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
    ***********
    ***********

    Three crosses:
    I would say however that your answer was bad theology. You seem to have suspended recorded history for unverified impractical theory(if it is theory, since it doesn’t seem falsifiable) maybe you can educate all of us on how far away from Sn1987a we were, how you measured it, how large it was, what the speed of light was in 1967, 1987, and now.
    *********
    Geno:
    We are over 167,000 light years from Sn1987a. Sn1987a is the most distant object ever measured by triangulation which was done using a circumstellar ring. The ring is about 1.34ly across and measures 1.66 arc seconds. I’ll allow you to do the trig yourself. The speed of light in 1987 was about 300,000,000 km/sec. Evidence of the 56Co isotope in the light signature of Sn1987a confirms the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with the speed of light observed on Earth today.

    I suggest you read my work at: http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm That work goes into far more detail that I can (or should) here.
    ***********
    **********

    Three Crosses:
    Explain how End Time’s explanation “created light” equals your statement “the Sn1987a eruption observed on Earth never happened. In other words, anything we observe beyond 6000 ly is nothing more than an illusion.”
    *********
    Geno:
    Once again, the AIG comments address this directly. When we observe distant objects, what we see is the light streaming from those objects. That light carries very specific information. If light from SN1987a were created in transit as End Times claims, then what was created was (as we go from Earth), a 6000 or so stream of light from an ordinary star (Sanduleak 69-202); a neutrino burst consistent with physics predictions of what takes place when a supernova happens; a supernova explosion; ???????

    The problem is that, under ET’s scenario, (1) the star never existed (2) the neutrino burst never happened and (3) the supernova explosion never took place.

    If you need further explanation, read AIG’s comments.
    *********
    *********

    Three crosses:
    How do you know it was an “eruption” lightbulbs don’t usually erupt, they just burn out and then you can’t see the bulb? People were created, animals were created and some of us die every day.
    **********
    Geno:
    Call it an “eruption”, “explosion”, “event”, “core collapse”, or whatever else you like. We know there was a supernova because we SAW it. In fact, Sn1987a is likely the most studied single astronomical object of the last 20 years. This is because it is the largest supernova observed from Earth in more than 400 years and (because of the neutrino burst) we had telescopes on in within MINUTES of the actual light from the event reaching Earth.

    Of course, according to ET, the event never took place, since the light we are observing started out some 6000 light years from Earth.
    **********
    **********

    Three crosses:
    Could you also explain how far 6000 lys. is in feet.
    **********
    Geno:
    Lets see…. 6000 ly times 365.25 days per year times 24 hours per day times 3600 seconds per hour times 186000 miles per second times 5280 feet per mile. I get something like 185952526848000000000 feet. What is the relevance?
    *********
    *********

    Three Crosses:
    Since temperature and strong gravity may effect the speed of light lets use Sn1987a as our control.
    **********
    Geno:
    Source?
    **********
    **********

    Three Crosses:
    Do you know what theology means?
    *********
    Geno:
    Probably. When I check my transcripts, I find some 10 semester hours of theology. How about you?
    ******
    ******

    Three Crosses:I would say a religion that defines itself as a superstition and teaches children to call an elected official “holy father” which they define as “Holy God” is really, really bad theology.
    ***********
    Geno:
    And I would say that any denomination that teaches people what they can see God’s creation itself is not true is slandering God.

    I just happen to believe that the proof of a UNIVERSAL God should be universal, not the book of a single faith.

  61. darling August 6, 2007 12:24 pm Reply

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 1:48am:

    “I thought that the supreme court ruling did not prohibit the teaching of creation but merely the “requirement that it be taught”.”

    It makes no difference whether it’s a law requiring creation be taught or a renegade teacher doing so without permission. Still prohibited.

    “Do you ever, or have you ever written “esquire” or “esq.” iether before or after your name?”

    Does trying it out when you were a pre-teen count? I’m sure I must have.
    Other than that, assume I have no qualifications or affiliations. Focus on my arguments, not me.

    Istvan Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 1:31pm:

    “Alas, if you really mean this, I feel truly sorry for you.”

    No need to feel sorry – that was merely a hypothetical example of how a teacher’s personal beliefs could be inappropriate in the classroom.

    “Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test.”

    Unfortunately, this was written before the Kitzmiller case, which concluded the exact opposite:
    “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that [design theory] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

    pabramson said this on August 5th, 2007 at 2:45pm:

    “I reacted strongly to “Darling’s” contention that one who teaches creation in a public school “deserves to be fired” because it seemed extremely intolerant.”

    Teaches creation in a public school science class. A rather important distinction.

    If it’s intolerant to suggest that people should be held accountable if they break the law, disobey and deceive their superiors and expose the community to unnecessary expense, then I can tolerate that. :)

    “Other voices cannot even be heard?”

    No, holocaust denial doesn’t belong in history class.

    Ekkman Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 9:05pm:

    “neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.

    If that’s all WTP were saying, they might be safe. Of course, that’s nowhere near the whole story. The full indictment here:
    http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Schulz_Compl.pdf

  62. Ekkman August 6, 2007 2:14 pm Reply

    CreationCD
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 1:46am:

    – This Comment may have inadvertently been submitted twice —
    – Please check and delete this copy if needed –

    Paul Abramson,

    Do you ever listen to the introduction to your own truth radio show?

    http://www.truthradio.com/archives.php

    On August 1st, in the MP3 archive, just prior to your show Richard Palmquist told a good story that might answer some of DQ’s challenges on this site. This is the story, shortened a bit because I’m a slow typist and also to conserve space.

    A Professor challenges his students, “Did God create everything?”

    Student 1, “Yes, he did. God created everything.”

    Professor, “Well, if God created everything then God created evil. Evil exists, and according to the principle that our works determine who we are then God is evil.”

    The first student became quiet before such an answer.

    The Professor quite pleased with himself boasts, “You see, I have proven once more that the Christian religion is a myth.”

    Student 2 raises his hand and says, “Can I ask you question professor?”
    “Does cold exist?”

    Professor, “Of course it exists, have you never been cold?”

    Student 2, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we call cold is in reality the absence of heat. We can measure the energy that a body or object possesses as heat but we cannot measure cold. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat; matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. So cold does not exist, men created the word cold to describe the absence of heat.”

    Student 2 continues, “Sir, does darkness exist?”

    Professor, “Of course.”

    Student 2, “Again sir, the laws of physics disagree with you. Darkness is the absence of light. We can study light, measure its wavelength, intensity and speed, but not darkness. Darkness is a term invented by man to express a state where no light is present.”

    Student 2 continues, “Sir, does evil exist.”

    Professor, “Of course, we observe evil every day in man’s inhumanity to man, in crime and violence whose manifestations are in fact evil.”

    Student 2, “No sir, evil does not exist, at least unto itself. Evil is the absence of God. Like cold or darkness it is a word man uses to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith and love which exists like light and heat, evil is what happens when man does not have God’s love in his heart. Evil is like the cold that comes when there is no heat and the darkness that comes when there is no light.

    For those of you who liked that story, have you read these Chick Comics?:
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp

    About the same show, I wish you had talked more about what is going on at CSE and DAL while you were there and not have gotten off topic so much. I had a couple of others at my workplace who gathered around the speakers when you said you’d be talking about what is currently going on with Dr. Hovind and his ministry. Not to mention I was on the edge of my seat.

    Ekkman said,

    I really like a lot of things on Chick’s site but anyone can be wrong in some areas even Chick. I agree with him on Roman Catholicism, the KJV, and many other subjects. Scientists can be wrong and have shown that they can be time and time again.

    God said,
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isa 45:7)

    Ekkman

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: The host server for http://www.TruthRadio.com is out in California. I usually connect a few minutes prior to the music that starts the program ("The SMART Hour"; 5PM EDT -OR- 2PM PDT). The introductory information and commercials are outside of my control. At 20 minutes and 40 minutes after the hour I expect music to queue me that we are going into a break.

    Learning sound doctrine - so very important! Matthew 13:19 "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side." Jesus often answered his critics with "Have you not read...?" or "For it is written..." to quote God's Word. Humans though, like traditions and human consensus above a plain reading of the Scriptures. Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." P.A. ]

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  63. btodd August 6, 2007 2:29 pm Reply

    Since we’re tossing out links regarding evolution vs. creationism, I would like to link you to Ken Miller’s talk regarding Intelligent Design and some of the evidences for evolution. This is a fascinating talk, and should shed a great deal of light on the fact that one doesn’t have to believe in a literal Genesis in order to be a Christian, since Ken is a practicing Roman Catholic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

    If anyone would like, I can link you to a video where Ken shows that among Creationists, there is actually disagreement as to which transitional fossils are apes, and which are humans. As he points out, if Creationists can’t seem to agree on where to draw the line, then it’s patently false to claim that ‘there are no transitional fossils’. There are clearly enough that it’s very difficult to draw the line. Which should also tell you why you’ve ‘never witnessed macroevolution’.

    Btodd

  64. Ekkman August 6, 2007 2:44 pm Reply

    Joshua Berndt
    Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 10:08pm:

    Also, how do I get a Gravatar?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: I am unfamiliar with them. I would go to either Wile E. Coyote’s “A.C.M.E. Gravitar Sales, Inc.” or to: http://site.gravatar.com/ for more info. P.A. ]

    Ekkman said,
    Joshua,
    From what I understand, you can’t use an gravatar on this page unless Paul has it set up for them.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Oh, this capability seems to have become available when the server was changed over a week ago. There is now the little "G" symbol for each post. I will try to find out what needs to happen to activate this. P.A. ]

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  65. EndTimes August 6, 2007 5:15 pm Reply

    btodd
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 2:29pm:

    Since we’re tossing out links regarding evolution vs. creationism, I would like to link you to Ken Miller’s talk regarding Intelligent Design and some of the evidences for evolution. This is a fascinating talk, and should shed a great deal of light on the fact that one doesn’t have to believe in a literal Genesis in order to be a Christian, since Ken is a practicing Roman Catholic.

    Dear btodd,

    Please tell us what is the BIBLICAL definition of a “Christian.” You may be surprised to find out that the Catholic faith has a much different definition and thus you may be quite presumptuous in calling Ken Miller a “Christian.”

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  66. Ekkman August 6, 2007 6:26 pm Reply

    Learned Hand
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 8:39am:

    Ekkman,

    It’s an interesting article, but I’m dubious as to its accuracy. I find that tax protesters are unable or unwilling to honestly report legal news – see, for instance, all the articles screaming that the recent case in Louisiana proved that the income tax is voluntary. (It didn’t, of course.) That article makes lots and lots of very strong claims, mostly about how the government is in trouble… but it doesn’t prove any of them. The case is still ongoing. The article looks like typical bluster that any litigant might write about their ongoing case. After all, every party in every trial is 100% correct in their own minds, and destined to prevail. It’s important to note that the trial is not about whether withholding is voluntary – I doubt tha court will ever approach that issue. It’s about the First Amendment and “prior restraint.” Generally, the government can’t ever stop someone from saying something before they actually say it, even if they could punish that person for saying it afterwards. As a civil libertarian, I wouldn’t mind if the protesters won that case, even though they may be advocating a crime.

    Finally, I’m glad to hear that Mr. Hovind’s prison experience has been so mild.

    Ekkman said,
    Learned Hand, I guess you can be “dubious as to its accuracy” but it is still true. The guy who runs the page that I quoted from has run front page articles talking about the income tax being illegal in major newspapers in different big cities in the United States. He quit paying income taxes a few years back and told the irs that he was doing it until they gave him the law based on the Constitution showing that he should pay them. Ron Paul in one of his speeches told the people that he will get rid of the IRS and the federal reserve. He talked about how much better America was doing without the federal reserve. They are just printing money out of thin air with nothing to back it up.
    In your comments above, you said that the a similar case is still going in Louisiana. WHY? It seems to me if they (the people) were wrong, they could prove it quickly and put all those “tas protestors” out fast like they did to Kent Hovind. Of course, it took them over 20 years in Kent’s case from what I understand and then they had to come up with the “structuring” law. Like Bush is showing us how we all need to get an national ID, somehow that is going to protect us from all the nasty things going on in our country from illegals whom the government wants it or they would secure our borders. Maybe we need the national ID so planes won’t run into buildings anymore or is it really to keep a closer watch on Americans and take what freedom in the natural that remains. Maybe that is why so many young people are behind Ron Paul since he is for the Constitution and against corrupt systems like the federal reserve or irs.
    To help you in regards to your doubts, I would like to challenge you to go ot the link supplied and watch the movie entitled, “America:Freedom to Fascism”. Scroll down and you will see a person’s hand tied behind his/her back with the American flag. Take an hour and 49 minutes out of your time and watch it, it couldn’t hurt and it might help you immensely in regards to Constitutional law or common law. If you don’t want to take an hour and 49 minutes out of your time then at least watch the 4 minute trailer, it might get you hungry for truth.

    http://www.wethepeoplecongress.org/

    I could give you names of many who are professionals in the law and IRS who are not paying income taxes and have web sites where they talk about it. There are ex IES agents such as Joe Banister, John Turner, Clifton Beale, Shirley

    Learned Hand, we all need a “learned” mind too. We are never above learning new things. None of us are all knowing except God.

    Watch the video where C Span covers the WTP petition on the same Page.

    Watch the video below to see what one of our Presidential canditates thinks of the irs. This is just one video of many. I guess you could say that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I don’t know of a Presidential candidate who knows the Constitution like he does.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyT3SBiTbpc

    If you are not willing to check these things out for yourself then I would guess you are wasting my time and I am wasting yours. I personally know, not just from what I have read but what I have experienced from our judicial system that is is corrupt to the hllt. They are going to get worse even though many don’t know how that is possible. Jesus Christ said there has never been a time as bad as what is ahead of us and never will be again. I think how bad the dark ages were when the Roman Catholic Church killed millions of born again believers and it is hard to imagine a time worse than that but it is coming. Only in the Lord Jesus Christ is there hope.

    We are on the edge of time as we know it and I would be super excited to see that you came into the life of God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ before it is too late for you.
    The word of God says,
    “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
    “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”
    “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

    I gave you three scriptures to show how simple salvation is but if you have no idea that we offended a holy God by our pride, arrogance, evil, just overall sin then you would see no need for the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to save sinners and we must see that by his Spirit. I pray that God will quicken these words to your conscience, cause you to see your filthiness in comparison to an all holy God. Jesus Christ came to save sinners and if we don’t see ourselves as such then that blindness can be broken by the Spirit of God. God works through the prayers of his people. I will be praying for you. I don’t need to know your name, God knows and he knows who I am lifting up before his throne of grace.
    There is much that we could talk about but if you are not willing to learn anything then there isn’t anything we can really talk about. I must be open to learning as well as you must be too. I share with those in the cults a lot. I was sharing with two Mormon missionaries the other day. After I talked a while showing them that their own book, the “Book of Mormon” condemns them by quoting a lot out of it and comparing it to “Doctrine and Covenants” showing the contradictions. All they said in reply was “Thanks for making fools out of us.” I told him that wasn’t my goal, you are just kids fresh out of high school and you take a few week course on how to preach the gospel but you must first learn it to be able to teach it. They left but I pray for them. Anyway, the same situation here. You must be willing to a least admit that you might be wrong on certain things in the law. Lawyers disagree with lawyers on the same subjects. Take the subject we are dealing with now, income taxes. There are lawyers fighting the IRS and winning. From your knowledge of law, they are wrong. From their knowledge of law, you are wrong.

    In closing if you think Kent Hovind’s sentence was mild then you should be super thankful that the “Sun M Moon” didn’t get near that time, just a few months and he “stole” a lot more than Kent “stole” from our poor government. Now he is shining on our government with his peace from above or is it below. He blessed Congress recently, you might already know that. Anyway, I am using “stole” from your definition not from mine. Stole to me is taking something illegally and I don’t believe Kent stole anything from our wonderful government. They would never do anything wrong except “ignore our Constitution” as Ron Paul lets us know and many others.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  67. david84ss August 6, 2007 6:37 pm Reply

    I’m glad to see that our prayers are working. I know that being in prison is not where anyone wants to be, but it’s nice to see that you are safe and being treated well. By your description, the facility seems pretty decent, I’m sure God will continue to do wonders in your life and in the lives of your fellow inmates. God Bless

    Dave

  68. Ekkman August 6, 2007 6:50 pm Reply

    btodd
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 2:29pm:

    Since we’re tossing out links regarding evolution vs. creationism, I would like to link you to Ken Miller’s talk regarding Intelligent Design and some of the evidences for evolution. This is a fascinating talk, and should shed a great deal of light on the fact that one doesn’t have to believe in a literal Genesis in order to be a Christian, since Ken is a practicing Roman Catholic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

    If anyone would like, I can link you to a video where Ken shows that among Creationists, there is actually disagreement as to which transitional fossils are apes, and which are humans. As he points out, if Creationists can’t seem to agree on where to draw the line, then it’s patently false to claim that ‘there are no transitional fossils’. There are clearly enough that it’s very difficult to draw the line. Which should also tell you why you’ve ‘never witnessed macroevolution’.
    Btodd

    Todd,
    When you talked about Roman Catholicism, you are not talking about Christians. Roman Catholicism has killed more Christians in the name of Christ, their bread and wine at their Eucharist. They crucify him every weekend at their “churches”. He is a dead Christ most of the time. That is one reason that you see Jesus Christ hanging on a cross in their “churches”, he is still dead to most of them that I have talked to but they call it the sacrifice of the mass.
    Many popes were evolutionists through the years and few were creationists. I don’t know of any who truly got saved and lived to talk about it. In other words, no proof if any did get saved. He is a prayer away from all of us though.
    I love the Roman Catholic people, I share with them as the opportunities arise. I went to their “churches” and witnessed to their people when they came out. I have debated a few “priests”. Most don’t know the word of God from what I have read and those whom I have talked to. That is why they believe water baptism saves, why they believe that you must confess your sins to a so-called priest when the word of God says that all Christians are kings and priests unto God. They are mainly into Mary worship, they pray mainly to her. They believe that Jesus will do anything that she tells him to do. The Catholic priests that I debated, shared with couldn’t even find most of the things we discussed in the bible, I had to tell them where to look and then they couldn’t find the books on the book so I had to do that too, just to talk about it. Then when they saw that their arguments didn’t hold water, they go in to call the cops on me. On the good side of this coin, many Roman Catholics are getting saved and coming out of bondage to the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  69. Ekkman August 6, 2007 7:08 pm Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 12:24pm:

    Ekkman Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 9:05pm:

    “neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.

    If that’s all WTP were saying, they might be safe. Of course, that’s nowhere near the whole story. The full indictment here:
    http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/Schulz_Compl.pdf

    darling,
    Correct me if I am wrong but when I went to the pdf file you linked and read it. I noticed the date at the bottom of the page. It said Apr 2, 2007. Robert Schulz is still heading his group and has filed many papers against the IRS since then. He is still out and running around, they haven’t taken him by force yet since he seems to know the law too well for them to catch him with lies and deceit. They will just have to take him illegally as they have many others. You link you sent me seems to be “no where near the whole story”.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  70. Ekkman August 6, 2007 7:39 pm Reply

    Geno
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 11:19am:

    Ekkman writes:
    We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution?
    *******
    Geno:
    Most scientists I know of who are YEC openly state that evidence conflicting with their YEC interpretation of Genesis is “invalid”. In fact, some of the major YEC organizations used to specifically state that in their statement(s) of faith and/or mission statements.

    Ekkman writes back:
    I spelled it out that I don’t believe that most of the ones in the ID are Christians or believers in God, they just know that darwinism couldn’t work or macro-evolution.

    I’ve seen the list of 600-700 scientists who reject evolution. For the information of those who are impressed by this, the National Center for Science Education started a “tounge in cheek” response known as “Project Steve” (named for Steven Gould who had passed away at about the time the list was started. Project Steve now has over 800 signatures. Since the name “Steve” (and its derivitives) represent about 1% of the population, these “Steve’s” represent some 80,000 scientists supporting evolution. So, briefly…. I’m not impressed by the list(s) of creationist scientists.

    Ekkman writes back,
    You didn’t mention my quote of at least 10,000 creation scientists in America alone who believe in a six day creation. Why? Did you somehow overlook it?

    Also, there is an entire organization of scientists who are Christians and who accept evolution. Link: http://asa3.org/
    ******
    ******

    Ekkman:
    (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)
    ***********
    Geno:
    Most evolutionists believe in God. I suspect all atheists are evolutionists. After all, they have no alternate theory. This is confirmed by those Gallup polls which typically show 10% of the total population believe evolution took place without input from God. Ten percent is the approximate number of atheists in the population, IIRC.

    Ekkman writes back,
    I was quoting a page and if you got it in context, he was talking about evolutionists saying that Creationism is religious and evolution isn’t. They are both religions. It is the science of one religion against the science of another religion.
    Now Ekkman’s thoughts based on the word of God regarding atheists. All believe in God, there are no real atheists. Jesus Christ lets us know we don’t come to God/Jesus because we prefer the darkness to the light because as he said, our deeds are evil.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  71. Ekkman August 6, 2007 7:46 pm Reply

    Ekkman
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 2:44pm:

    Joshua Berndt
    Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 10:08pm:

    Also, how do I get a Gravatar?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: I am unfamiliar with them. I would go to either Wile E. Coyote’s “A.C.M.E. Gravitar Sales, Inc.” or to: http://site.gravatar.com/ for more info. P.A. ]

    Ekkman said,
    Joshua,
    From what I understand, you can’t use an gravatar on this page unless Paul has it set up for them.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Oh, this capability seems to have become available when the server was changed over a week ago. There is now the little “G” symbol for each post. I will try to find out what needs to happen to activate this. P.A. ]

    Ekkman said,
    But you need to be careful about them, people coming here can put some really dirty sick junk as their gavatar but I think you can set it up where that doesn’t happen??? Not sure!

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  72. EndTimes August 6, 2007 9:36 pm Reply

    Dear Geno,

    I do not mind at all if I am criticized for something that I have actually stated, but I truly don’t appreciate a whole series of statements attributed to me that are quite off from what I stated or believe. Let’s look at the facts.

    1) God created the universe. I was not there nor do I have a clue how He did it, yet I trust that all that is written by Him is true. This is not blind faith since my faith came by hearing and hearing by the word of God. In other words, there are many areas in the Bible that I do not know how God did what God did, yet, there are even more areas in the Bible that prove He is who He says He is. If you are not convinced, I truly am sorry for that fact. However, every knee shall bow and declare that Jesus Christ is Lord including you, Carl Sagan, S.J. Gould, Karl Marx, all the popes that have ever been, all the scientists that deny His existence and every living creature on this planet given the breath of life of man. So, when I have questions that I do not understand, I do have enough faith in the Bible that I will take God’s Word for the answer even if I cannot prove it. The witness of God is greater than the witness of man. That God has proven to me over and over again in many different ways.

    II Peter 3:5 states that He made the heavens with the appearance of age, in other words, you could see the light on earth at the time Adam and Eve were created also with the appearance of age as full “grown” man and woman in a full “grown” garden of Eden. He further demonstrated His creative powers with full “grown” fish when He fed the multitudes. How He has done this, I do not know, but I do not question His ability to do this.

    2) Even though I do not “yet” understand how seemingly huge distances involved in starlight could be seen with events in the last 6000 years, I do not in any case believe that there is anything fabricated by God and further any super novas that we see have indeed happened since the time of creation and are not an illusion as you have wrongly attributed to me.

    I would suggest that as has happened on many other occasions where the Bible was called wrong on several different subjects, in the end analysis when all of the evidence became available, the Bible turned out to be absolutely correct. So, I will wait for the time that the Lord will show us what we don’t understand on how He has done some simply incredible things, but I will place my trust at all times in God when it comes to a matter of whether man is right or God is right since He has a much better track record than man. If you feel I am sticking my head in the sand, then so be it. Yet, I have no doubt that He will answer all of your objections to his omnipotent power if you would only humble yourself before Him.

    3) Lastly, how can any sane or rational man watch the links by CreationCD with all of the incredible molecular machines of life and believe that blind chance has created these engineering marvels? That truly takes much more faith than the evidentiary faith that the Lord has given me. I asked when I was about 20 years old that if Jesus was real to show Himself to me. This He has done abundantly and completely even if it was in His time starting 16 years later. No, it is a great puzzle to me why I had to wait for creationists to show me some of these amazing molecular machines when I was never exposed to them in my “formal” biology and medical training.

    So, if you wish to BELIEVE that a 100,000 rpm rotary engine could spring into existence by blind chance in E. Coli bacteria to compete with Listeria Monocytogenes and its rocket powered transport system, then by all means go ahead and be “objective” and “scientific.” How about telling us how the many molecular machines that use proton and electron power sprang into existence by chance alone. I have some property in Brooklyn that looks like a bridge if you really believe that nonsense.

    I would further caution you to consider some peer reviewed “science” done by Sir Fred Hoyle showing how ludicrous it is to consider spontaneous development of life by chance alone. His research shows that there is not enough matter in the entire known universe, nor enough time in the supposedly 12-20 billion years since the big bang to have “spontaneous” generation of life at least once if not many times according to the leading evolutionary “thinkers.” So, yes, the consideration of abiogenesis which was one in the same with ToE such a short time ago when I took and passed and excelled in evolutionary biology is truly an absurd exercise in faith based blindness. This is faith that is in the “god” of evolution, natural selection and pools of organic goo that springs to life and grows from a protozoan to a frog to a prince. And you call my Bible a fairy tale?

    So, my friend, I am a lover of logic puzzles, mathematics, chemistry and biology and the entire ToE falls quite short on logic or statistical probability. And you call me illogical and religious minded.

    I am ever mindful of how little any man knows, yet ever grateful for the all knowing God who not only created me, the stars and it’s light, but He also gave His only begotten Son for my eternal ransom for my sins. He is not a liar but He has been accused of this many times over by foolish and ignorant men. It is not a recommended position to remain in however and I wish you the best in your search for the truth.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter Laird, MD

    P.S. I wish to express my continued appreciation for Paul Abramson putting up with all of the nonsense that he puts up with in doing this service to the Lord for the truth to be known. I am certain that Dr. Hovind most especially is quite grateful for this unselfish act. Even if this entire experiment crashes tomorrow, the efforts that you have already placed in maintaining a professional and open discussion is quite commendable. Thank you again.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  73. Gary Trzcinski August 6, 2007 10:20 pm Reply

    Dr. Hovind,

    I came across two of your debates a few months ago. I thought they were great. Since that time I have viewed several of the presentations on your website. Your material is excellent, and your communication skills are outstanding. I have become much more knowledgeable about Creation issues because of your ministry.

    As an educator and minister, I am always looking for the best resources to promote the truth. Thank you for your efforts over the years. I will pray that the Lord will prepare you for the next phase of your ministry and that you will be released soon.

  74. Three Crosses August 6, 2007 10:53 pm Reply

    To Geno:
    I don’t understand what you mean by this statement:
    “And I would say that any denomination that teaches people what they can see God’s creation itself is not true is slandering God.
    I just happen to believe that the proof of a UNIVERSAL God should be universal, not the book of a single faith.”

    I don’t really understand this statement, sorry please rewrite. I will get back to you on the above.
    ============================
    Geno “My interpretation…. “Big Bang”.

    I think you could pick any pile of airplane parts you want. Set off as many explosions as you want. Wait as long as you want. Hit it with lightning and you will never get a working airplane.

    Geno:”We agree. We simply disagree as to when. Besides, what’s a mere 13 billion years to an eternal God? Nothing.”

    What is 6 days to God? I’m afraid your use of the word “mere” doesn’t make much sense to me. Are you saying God invented the heavens and then waited 13+ billion years to use them. What was 3 days to God?

    Geno’s AIG comment[]

    I have read AIG’s statements, I’m not sure what you mean, maybe you should refer me to “End Time’s explanation”. See if the speed of light isn’t constant isn’t it a mute point. Evidence says the speed of light isn’t constant [source](http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html) , we know it is not constant from media to media[source](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=630). We do not know what transparent/translucent media might occur over only 6000 lys much less 167,000 lys. You are claiming to get an accurate triangulated measurement on the most distant thing we have ever triangulated. Right now scientists are arguing on both sides whether or not the speed of light has changed. (between then and now, more so than there or here) Of course this opens a whole argument about whether or not observing it from here/now would construe a rubber ruler effect. All in the realm of theory or hypothesis.

    Geno: I have omitted part of your statement i think I addressed it already, if not please let me know.”a neutrino burst consistent with physics predictions of what takes place when a supernova happens; a supernova explosion; ???????”

    I believe it was a “plausible explanation” not a “prediction” these two words are often interchanged. A lot of people try to explain why something might have happened. Then if they come up with an explanation that pleases them. They assume the explanation as a prediction of what might happen in the future (speculation), actually still in the realm of theory or hypothesis.

    Geno:”Call it an “eruption”, “explosion”, “event”, “core collapse”, or whatever else you like. We know there was a supernova because we SAW it. In fact, Sn1987a is likely the most studied single astronomical object of the last 20 years. This is because it is the largest supernova observed from Earth in more than 400 years and (because of the neutrino burst) we had telescopes on in within MINUTES of the actual light from the event reaching Earth.”

    I understand we know it got real bright and went out, but that doesn’t tell us how far away it was or what the speed of light was then, or what external factors may have effected the light(example some theorize gravity can bend or alter the speed of light black holes etc.[source]http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/blackholes.php). I think one could argue that the middle of a supernova might not be a vacuum. Wouldn’t gravity and the gravitational field change with either a “explosion”, “core collapse”. You are theorizing what may have happened.

    Three Crosses:”Do you know what theology means?”
    Geno:”Probably. When I check my transcripts, I find some 10 semester hours of theology. How about you?”

    Sorry about the theology comment. I was out of line, one definition is “the science which studies God and all that relates to him” My apologies (I didn’t take theology in college). Doesn’t everything relate to God?

    Thank you for addressing my comments
    Have you accepted the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
    with love, three crosses

  75. Learned Hand August 6, 2007 10:54 pm Reply

    Moderator,

    No apology necessary; my comment has appeared. Thank you again for your relatively evenhanded approach to moderation; it is a refreshing change from other creationists, such as William Dembski, who seem petrified of open commentary.

    CreationCD posted links to two Chick tracts. One of them deals with science, and as with most creationist representations of evolutionary theory, the author was either appallingly ignorant or entirely dishonest. Virtually nothing it says about science is true. NB, I’m not saying that the tract’s claims about reality are wrong, although I clearly think that they are. The tract’s representation of science is absolute baloney. One can disagree with the conclusions of scientists without lying about what scientists believe… but many creationists choose not to. For some reason, outright lies are many creationists’ stock in trade.

    See these links for specific criticisms of Chick’s attempt to spread Christianity with lies:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html
    http://www.whiterose.org/dr.elmo/blog/archives/001781.html

    What happens to a believer who converts based on lies such as Chick’s, when he learns the truth about science? If his faith is based on this infantile caricature of actual science, wouldn’t learning that Christians have been lying all along about what science teaches be injurious to his faith? And for the evangelist, is lying for Christ a sound Christian practice? I get the impression, reading many comments here, that what really matters is the mere appearance of good character and moral behavior, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to tell, support, and embrace a lie as long as it makes one look like a good Christian in front of the rest of the flock.

    I doubt that CreationCD will care that the tracts are inaccurate and dishonest regarding the conclusions of scientists. I predict that what really matters is that they *look* very Christian, and that appearance of piety will triumph over the actual practice of moral behavior.

  76. Istvan August 6, 2007 11:20 pm Reply

    Geno,
    Veni, vidi, vici, right, Geno? You took the time, and told us all how wrong we are. But I think you are wrong. YECs are zealous Christians who can err, too. To err is human. But their fundamental assumption is absolutely correct. God created everything, that is what the Bible says. Now not to have faith in God and the Bible is human, too. You say you believe in science and God. But you have more faith in science than in God, because you see scientific evidence that seems to contradict some grave statements made by the Bible. But if science is so important to you, why believe in God at all? Do you have enough hard scientific evidence to prove He exists? Why believe in Jesus? Do you have enough scientific evidence that He existed and still exists in Heaven? How about Heaven and scientific evidence? Got any GPS coordinates in the Bible or anywhere else? How about the Fall of Man? When did that happen? And how? Is there really sin in the world separating man from God? What is sin?

    So how about some faith in the Biblical sense? ‘Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ (Hebrews 11:1). No scientifically sound hard evidence, sorry, but ‘the evidence of things not seen’. “But without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”(Hebrews 11:6). It says ‘faith’ and not ‘scientific evidence’. You do not need science to please God. You need faith. The Bible does not say that you need to have a PhD to be saved. You need faith.

    ‘Professing to be wise, they became fools.’ (Romans 1:22).

    ‘And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.’(Matthew 19:24) How about an evolutionist to enter the kingdom of God? Do not let science stand between you and God. That would be unwise.

    Darling,
    You did not tell me what you believe in.

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  77. Ekkman August 6, 2007 11:27 pm Reply

    I was speaking of “We the People” earlier. Here is a small cut from another article on their site.

    Illegal Immigration:
    A Profound Solution
    To The Invasion

    If The Government Will Not Act,
    We The People Have A Duty,
    And The Legal Power To End It

    Some months ago over 500,000 illegal immigrants took to the streets of Los Angeles in bold defiance of the immigration laws of the United States. Similar demonstrations were also held that day and in the days following in other American cities.

    The speakers who addressed the illegal immigrants at the demonstrations and the signs being carried by the demonstrators themselves were openly proclaiming the true purpose of the unlawful, and virtually unchecked, mass migration across our southern border. It’s a message that is now often and openly repeated by opinion leaders in the illegal immigrant community.

    For instance, Jose Angel Gutierrez, a Professor at the University of Texas in Arlington has said publicly, “This is our homeland. We belong here. We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made illegal in our homeland. We are not immigrants…We are free to travel the length and breath of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It is a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.”

    In addition, Joe Bacca, California State Senator has said publicly, “But when we look out at the audience and we see Amuela, La Raza, you know, it’s a great feeling. Isn’t it a great feeling? And you know, it reminded me of a book that we all read and we all heard about. You know. Paul Revere, when he was saying, ‘The British are coming. The British are coming.’ Well, the Latinos are coming. The Latinos are coming. So that’s what this agenda is about. It’s about the feeling that we increase our numbers, that we increase our numbers at every level. And let me tell you, we can’t go back. We are in a civil war. United, Latinos will win.”

    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-02-10.htm

    This world is going crazy, cracking at the seams. The word says, “Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
    And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
    And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”
    Luke 21:26-28

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  78. ccherrett August 6, 2007 11:59 pm Reply

    Hi Paul,

    I did not think I was using it lightly.

    This is a little bit more than just a guy that won’t give his name. But you know that.

    Chris Cherrett

  79. sumawolf August 7, 2007 1:26 am Reply

    Brother Kent , I heard one of your seminars about 15 years ago . I have never forgot what I learned from you as far as reading the bible goes and that is to read it and take it literally as it says . It opened my eyes to things in the bible I had questions about ever since I was a child . I was so angered when I realized how the schools taught about the so called ice age when I attended but never said one word about the flood of Noah . I have understood more about the word of God ever since . I want to thank you for that . Will be keeping you in my prayers . Take care , keep the faith and may God bless you . Your brother in Christ , Jeff

  80. Jersey Girl August 7, 2007 5:30 am Reply

    Geno,

    Boy, you sure have a lot to say. In fact, it seems like you have a response to almost every single statement made on this blog. One might think that it was set up just for YOU instead of the Hovind family…

    Rebecca :)

  81. btodd August 7, 2007 6:59 am Reply

    I almost put a disclaimer in my last post, but didn’t want to appear too presumptuous.

    I had no doubt that some of you would pull out the old “Well, they aren’t TRUE Christians” argument when faced with the notion that many Christians accept evolution. I think if I tried to pin you down on it, I might find that any Christian of any denomination that acknowledges the truth of evolution would be deemed to be “NOT a TRUE Christian” by your literal standards.

    Did any of you watch the link, or do we just dismiss everything Ken Miller had to say simply because he’s a Roman Catholic?

    End Times, I would love to address your points, once you clear up the dishonesty / mistake you committed last time we were addressing each other. I repeatedly asked you to clear up the matter, and you simply ignored me. Until you do, it’s pointless to keep addressing me.

    Btodd

  82. pabramson August 7, 2007 7:31 am Reply

    Dear Desirée,

    Speaking as a moderator who is ALWAYS accepting and welcoming of new participants to http://www.CSEblogs.com – let me give you one perspective. You asked:

    “People don’t realize that in a very subtle way… more and more Christian leaders and organizations.. groups, pastors, etc. are being tracked down and “punished”. That was my research. Which is why my FIRST questions were not about evolution… but rather about the circumstances of Kent Hovind.”

    I am not aware of this trend, as such. However it would make sense if this were the case. In 1962-63 they began to remove the Bible and prayer from the public schools. Rebellion soon followed. A new opposing value system based on this life alone (i.e. a belief that there is no afterlife) began to manifest itself more powerfully in America. They called it a “generation gap” at the time, but it was no such thing. (It is not happening today, is it?) A better term would be a “values gap” where the skeptics were given respectability and belief in evolution was a pivotal part of that foundation. Today we are embroiled in a Culture War between a “culture of life” and a “culture of death”. The death guys are winning. If interested, please see my video, “Rescuing America: Restoring Normalcy and Winning the Culture War” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=664050476979053114 -OR- in MP3: http://www.creationism.org/mp3/

    By consensus (but not by conspiracy, I think) those old fashioned pastors, priests, and rabbis are “holding us back” and “teaching myths” to the people. The good guys (as the “culture of death” people tend to think of themselves) believe that we “bad guys” (religious folk; hypocrites; Bible thumpers; “culture of life” types) must be stopped. They are not organized yet. That is why I think that their actions are by consensus at this time.

    There is less inherent respect for a man of the cloth these days. Our society has become quicker to judge. And as we fall (from my perspective) from being a generally Christian-based society to an evolution-based society (survival of the meanest and most deceitful), then harsher terms will be meted out to those “religious types who are holding us back anyways, and we know that they are all hypocrites….”

    Have you seen David Limbaugh’s book, “Persecution”?

    Concerning Dr. Hovind, this is a most difficult case. A jury of his peers judged him and his wife “guilty on all counts” and the judge has given each of them stiff sentences. Some folks see this as persecution; others as him getting what he deserves; some are in between. And there are some who believe that he has a big blind spot when it comes to government things in general. He is excellent at debating evolutionists, but he could not win a debate against agents who had unlimited financial resources and the power of government behind them, some would contend.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  83. michaelmark123 August 7, 2007 7:37 am Reply

    What an incredible attitude you have, Dr.Hovind. You are an inspiration to be so positive and continue doing God’s work in your time of tribulation. Believe me, you are being used out here as well! You are absolutely right that the evolutionists quiet down during the debates with you, let them do all their bashing now, because once they face you, they almost cower to the “Hulk Hogan” of Evolution/Creation debates, ha!
    I will continue praying for your strength, your safety, your ministry, and your release and your wife’s release, Dr. Hovind.

    In Christ,

    MichaelMark123

  84. Maturekid August 7, 2007 7:53 am Reply

    Good to hear Kent is in good spirits. My wife and I are looking forward to the developments as they go.

    Paul & others,

    As a means of an intellectual exercise, can we compile our efforts into a bit of a comprehensive resource list on the E vs C topic?

    In my reading, it seems that most websites fall into one of 5 categories. Creation Bias, Creation Bias with Scientific Research, Neutral Pure Science (may harpoon one side or the other or both but sticks to science), Evolution Bias w/ Scientific Research, Evolution Bias.

    It shouldn’t be overly difficult to differentiate which website goes where. Of course, we’ll get the standard nonsense gripe of if a website isn’t for Evol it must be Creationist irregardless if it is just pure science and logic. Then that whole debate of Evol is science not a philosophy / religion.

    A fair definition of science can be found on http://www.scienceagainstevolution.com – a secular, non religious website (Thanks Ekkman)by their own definition. And if anyone has a problem with these quoted statements, take it up with the website authors.

    “The Definition of Science
    The fact that we are even talking about “junk science” and “good science” is evidence of a change in the definition of science. Fifty years ago, “science” meant the discovery of truth using the scientific method. A scientist was one who made an observation, formulated a hypothesis about the observation, proposed a theory that explained the observation, then performed experiments designed to prove or disprove the theory. The wonderful thing about science was that it was free of human bias. It didn’t matter if the scientist was a Republican or Democrat, Christian or atheist, Yankee fan or Red Sox fan, the experiment always gave the same result. Science earned a reputation for credibility because it was based on experimentally verifiable results, not somebody’s opinion.

    Today, “science” has been redefined so that inference is given equal credence with experimentation. Now “Science” is whatever a scientist believes. The key word here is “believes.” In modern society the phrase, “Scientists believe …” has more credibility than, “Plumbers believe …” or, “Grocery clerks believe …”. Why should this be the case?”

    Continued from http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i4f.htm

    “The Traditional Definition
    According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, science is “knowledge concerning general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method” where the scientific method is defined to be “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses”.

    In other words, science is a way to determine truth using a particular method. That method begins when a scientist notices something interesting and begins to wonder how or why it happens. After giving it some thought, he proposes the reason for it. Then he devises an experiment that should produce a particular result if his reasoning is correct, but will produce a different result if it is wrong. Then he does the experiment and observes the results. If the results consistently turn out as expected, the reason is accepted as being true, until another equally credible experiment shows it to be false.

    The key point is that truth is determined by a measurable result, not someone’s opinion. ”

    ….

    “Inference is Not Reliable
    Inference is not as reliable for determining truth as experimentation is. Inference is merely someone’s opinion. That opinion could be influenced by prejudice, a desire for fame, or the need to satisfy a sponsor to obtain more funding. One can infer just about anything, regardless of the truth. ”


    “True science is independent of political or religious bias. Experiments work or don’t work regardless of who won the last election. The outcome of an experiment doesn’t depend on whether the scientist goes to church or not. Inference, on the other hand, can be affected by the reigning political or religious powers. That’s why inference should have no part in science. ”

    Do note they define “evolution” as macro-evolution and the origin of life. They include both as before you can start talking about macro, you first have to show where it started from – empirically. They define micro-evolution as “selection” or “variation of species” or kinds. Which is a reasonable differentiation. If the textbooks used that differentiation, I’m certain there wouldn’t be as many issues. This is something Kent has commented on a number of times in his seminar tapes and is a fair charge.

    Personal note:
    If someone wants to explain why the hard data better fits one model over another and demonstrates enough humility and honesty to state “in my opinion” or “I believe” or “I think that it worked this way”, I can respect what they are about to say whether or not I agree with their conclusions. When a person starts going off on “fact”, “truth”, “we know”, or calling someone else a liar without substantiating it, I have no respect for that individual’s stances. End note.

    To quote the authors of the above website: “Science deals with facts, not belief. Something is not a fact simply because someone who has been trained as a scientist believes it. Something is a fact because anyone who had adequate laboratory equipment can do an experiment that proves the fact is true.”

    Naturally, these comments will now start off a new strand to be nitpicked to death and repeat what has already been said several main posts ago.

    This link from the same website does a good job summarizing what the battle is really about: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i5f.htm

  85. Geno August 7, 2007 8:32 am Reply

    Jersey Girl
    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 5:30am:
    Geno,
    Boy, you sure have a lot to say. In fact, it seems like you have a response to almost every single statement made on this blog. One might think that it was set up just for YOU instead of the Hovind family…
    ********
    Pi:
    Rubbish.

    There are many on this blog who make FAR more posts than I do. I suspect you are simply upset because it was your “ox” that was being “gored” when I took you to task for failing to provide the information necessary to validate your claims.


    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    Folks, we know that there are many answered and unanswered challenges on blog sites. It is a running debate or commentary. Some persons chime in more or less than others. Please try to not get too personal. Each day fluctuates. But let's keep Al Gored out of it. P.A. ]

  86. darling August 7, 2007 8:37 am Reply

    Ekkman Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 7:08pm:

    “I noticed the date at the bottom of the page. It said Apr 2, 2007. Robert Schulz is still heading his group and has filed many papers against the IRS since then.”

    I’m really not sure what your point is.

    You quoted the article saying: “The United States… sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year…”

    I linked to that very indictment, which shows that the government alleges a whole lot more than WTP admit. Why wouldn’t Mr. Schulz still be around?

  87. DQ August 7, 2007 9:50 am Reply

    EndTimes:
    The more you talk, the more you make it clear to me that I made the right decision in rejecting creationism for evolution. You claim to be knowledgeable about evolution, [...EDITED...] or you do know that you are lying and it doesn’t matter to you, because, as Learned Hand has pointed out, a lie told in furtherance of “christian” principles is apparently ok.

    Some time ago I posted a link to a website that contains many documented examples of evolution that have been observed in the lab. It was completely ignored, and people went right on stating that evolution was false. But that’s not how you conduct an argument, at least not if you have any intellectual honesty at all. What you would do if you were indeed a scientist, indeed what any scientist would do, is to address each example of evolution listed on that website and give scientifically valid reasons why they are in error. But you don’t do that. You continue to set up straw men and knock them down. That works great with people who already agree with you, but to those of us that recognize what you are doing you look silly.

    Now, a couple of other observations. I notice …[EDITED...]

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: DQ - I read your post through a couple of times. It is so blasphemous and insulting to others ... that I want to ask you to please rewrite it in a more persuasive (and less overly insulting) manner. Please.

    Yes, all who disagree with you are wrong. Okay, got that. Persuade, not berate us, please. And it also seems IMHO that you are again getting too personal in insisting that your debate opponents must be lying.

    Please remind us of the link to "proof" for evolution. There are (at least) six definitions of "evolution", of course: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm (If #6 is shown in the lab, that does NOT make the other five true, of course.) Sorry for cutting out most of your post; the allegations against God in particular were a little too much for me. Jesus said, (Matthew 12:36 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (I will now make a general, not personal, insult.) From MY perspective, you evolutionists can (turning around barbs from evolutionists...) ignore gravity, claim that the Earth is flat, and that there are no moral laws, but such beliefs are not in line with reality. P.A. ]

  88. EdwardShawn August 7, 2007 10:29 am Reply

    Dear brother Hovind:

    Thank you so much for your yielded life to Christ. He is evidently reflected in your life. In reading your postings, it is like reading a
    biography of the saints of years gone by. Although unlike yourself I am a free man, I am making apoint to live more as a servant of Christ and not
    use my free time for myself but rather for the Lord. As a father, husband, worker at my bank ( where I have handed out to several your material
    recently apart from many others outside of work), and at church, I am learning more to apply how you live to my own life.

    Yes there is enough in the scriptures so that one shouldn’t need your example but nevertheless, your life makes it easier to obey the scriptures.
    One thing I will be joyful for at the judgement seat of Christ (not everything I know will be joyful for me),is that apart from the creation
    evolution material you provide, I have taken heed to a number of your exhortations on how to live as a Christian (i.e. video 1st Love, How To make
    Money and Use It God’s Way, etc.)and put them into practice. Also I have been impressed by your mention of your father who though not being construction oriented, decided one day to pick up a hammer and teach himself so he could teach you how to build. I wish I had done that. I am also moved at your son’s testimony of the things you had taught him. Also your wife what little i have learned of her has touched me as a Proverbs 31 type of woman. What a precious family!

    The ins and outs of this case and U.S. tax law is beyond my grasp to comprehend at the moment with all the tit for tat comments, but what I have
    seen in other areas of your life, THAT I can grasp. It has done me or my family no evil.

    Our Lord continue to be your portion. Edward Super

  89. EndTimes August 7, 2007 10:45 am Reply

    Dear Learned Hand,

    You are perhaps the most amazing commentator to ever visit this blog for the number of times you have called other people on this blog ignorant and now your new favorite term is liar. Yet at the same time, you are the one that shows only a limited understanding of evolution and the underlying difficulties with its theories that you are utterly failing to defend. For sake of brevity, please just tell us a “plausible” naturalistic theory on where all of the information for life came from. I would really like to be “educated” on this one.

    Second of all, I guess I will be called a liar by you for telling you that I was taught that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” by a modern lecturer with direct references to Haeckel himself in college. If it has known to be incorrect for 100 years (That is true) then why did I learn and take tests on this theory in my comparative anatomy course during my undergraduate education? I am not over one hundred years old at this time, so either your commentator is misinformed or, oh my, your source is a LIAR Learned Hand. I still to this day have a very clear image from my comparative anatomy textbook burned deeply into my memory of that which your source states never happened.

    LIAR, LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE LEARNED HAND.

    Furthermore, I believe that you missed the fact in your link, that this author quotes Stephen J. Gould and Richard Feynmann confirming that pre-college text books LIE to their students on well known discredited lines of thought. Can’t you see that is a direct confirmation of the brainwashing of young students before the age of critical thinking that will cause them to then go off to law school and think that they know something about evolution and come here to CSE and call people ignorant and liars when in point of fact, it is you that is still brainwashed from your elementary and high school teachings which sorry to say were untrue and false. In fact, I don’t believe him when they state that this is not taught at the college level as well since that is where I first learned this “law” of nature.

    “As for the textbook, well, science textbooks below the college level stink on ice. As has been repeatedly decried by scientists like Richard Feynmann and Stephen Jay Gould, primary and secondary science textbooks are inaccurate, incestuous, and perpetuate lines of thought long since discredited in the modern understanding of the field. Textbook writers simply do not go to the primary sources; they go to other textbooks.”

    http://www.whiterose.org/dr.elmo/blog/archives/001781.html

    Quite frankly, you are the least informed obnoxious commentator to ever appear on this forum discussing issues way above your area of education. Please do yourself a favor and go learn a little more of the real science that you think you know, when in fact, you know very little. I quite enjoy discussing objective criticisms from informed detractors of creation, but nothing is enjoyable in any of your uninformed and contentious diatribes because you are simply not informed.

    Here is an excellent BEGINNING lesson on abiogenesis that should get you up to date on a few of these issues of why the Miller/Urey experiment is first of all a false representation of the origins of life and why the origin of life without an intelligent designer is impossible since this is one of the listed LIES from your source. I would hope that you might actually learn some useful knowledge and not be scared to confront your preconceived notions of what TRUE science is trying to teach you.

    In kindness,

    Peter Laird, MD

    Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
    Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
    © 1999 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission
    First published in CRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, March 2000
    “Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.”

    http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

    Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  90. EndTimes August 7, 2007 10:51 am Reply

    Dear btodd,

    I have never deliberately lied to you in any manner. If you wish to accuse me of being a liar, you are in good company on this blog, yet that does not relieve you of the challenge of answering a very simple question: What is the BIBLICAL definition of a Christian? I truly do not believe for one minute that the Catholic church understands this very simple truth. To help you out, here is the verse:

    John3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
    4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
    5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
    6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
    7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
    8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  91. tobejustlikejesus August 7, 2007 12:40 pm Reply

    I have read all 83 posts for this blog (took me a while since I am at work)….

    First of all, I have no intention of hiding myself. I will even tell you where I live(though the moderator might find this to be TOO open). The reason I say this first before opening into any discussion is to be perfectly honest in my dealings with Christians or non-christians alike.

    I would like first to discuss true christendom. I have taken theology and biblical interpretation. I am familiar also with General Christianity. (By the way, you do not have to major in theology to be Christian ;)

    Being christian is exactly what Romans 10:9-10 states. We must believe that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead for our sins. That He was sinless and perfect. that He was the Son of God. The rest is not part of justification (what salvation truly is—being justified before Gods judgment) and IS part of Sanctification (this is the process of our walk with Christ…our maturing as Christians)

    I wanted this laid out on the line. A Christian is a Christ follower and NOT a Creation Science follower and I know Hovind believes the same.

    However, Biblical teaching is aimed at what Creation science teaches. It teaches a literal six day creation period. to which, before that was nothing…at least in finite understanding of things. To believe otherwise, is to miscontrue God’s Word and promotes chaos among Christians regarding his Written Word. This is truly the Devil’s plan, as can bee seen by people who post that even Christians argue amongst themselves. unity is a must. the bible is clear, ladies and gentlemen.

    God is the ONLY one who can judge if a person is truly a Christian. Remember our calling from the end of Matthew and within Mark. We are the messengers!!!

  92. JohnLake August 7, 2007 3:03 pm Reply

    Jersey Girl
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 7:44am:


    JohnLake,

    Well I’m certainly glad to hear Dr. Hovind got only ten years, instead of 15! Guess everyone has typos, now don’t they? I am not at liberty to give you the inmate’s name that I spoke about, because my husband never told me. He is not at liberty to disseminate personal information on the men that he works with, since that would be a breach of trust. This gentleman took the time to relate his story to a correctional officer (the enemy) and it would be pretty messed up if my husband went around blabbing his name all over the place. Why do you need his name so bad anyway? There are countless examples of people in prison for over ten years because they angered the IRS, do a search yourself, perhaps you might find this information on your own. Also, I think it would be highly immoral of me to put someone’s name on a public blog that also discusses how much money they have. Can you imagine the problems that could cause for him? He’ll get out of prison and discover that he ID has been stolen while he was incarcerated!

    If you don’t want to believe what I say, that’s fine with me. It doesn’t matter anyway, I wasn’t talking to you personally, I was talking to all the people who want to defend the IRS all the time. If you still want to know, try googling it. The guy was probably in the news a bit.

    Rebecca

    Rebecca,

    Here’s a test for you; why don’t you “google” it and tell me if you get the correct result.
    This might be especially tricky, since you claim that your husband never told you the billionaire’s name.

    How would you expect me to find the information if you cannot even find it?

    You posted a lot of details about this man’s situation (sentence, length of appeal, amount of the donation) and made it appear that he did no wrong (in fact he was convicted for benefiting society) he was wrongly prosecuted and convicted by the evil IRS. You did manage to leave out the particular details that would allow anyone to verify your story. How convenient.

    If you cannot be completely honest about the information, please don’t post it as fact.

    JohnLake

  93. GORGE August 7, 2007 3:48 pm Reply

    Dear Geno,
    You said:
    “You really should have read the AIG comments. They explained it pretty well. Simply stated, under End Times explanation, any event we observe in the sky past 6000 light years simply never happened and the object never existed. That makes God a liar in the heavens themselves.

    Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading your work.

    Dr Hovind refers to this subject matter on a number of his seminar DVDs; he too states the possibility of time differentiation.

    Your conclusion, seems to be a remarkable jump. The following links present a promising rejection, to your final declaration.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/01/reason-seven-supernova-1987a

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  94. GORGE August 7, 2007 4:20 pm Reply

    Dear Mr. Hand,

    You said:
    “What happens to a believer who converts based on lies such as Chick’s, when he learns the truth about science?”

    Six years ago I turned to Christ. In reaction to my repentence and seeking, God placed His light and power into my heart, easing my pains and healing my wounds. My beliefs in Evolution, that I held all my adult life( up to that point), where in 5 minutes shown to be false.
    God says to man “cleanse your hands you sinners and draw near to God (through Jesus) and He will draw near to you”
    Thats a promise from God.

    Godbless.

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  95. darling August 7, 2007 5:24 pm Reply

    Maturekid Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 7:53am:

    “And if anyone has a problem with these quoted statements, take it up with the website authors.”

    Evolution is science. And if anyone has a problem with that statement, take it up with the National Academy of Sciences.

    Man, nobody told me it was that easy. :)

    But seriously, I understand if people are unwilling or unable to defend whatever position they want to take. But when it comes to making an assertion here, you really ought to be willing and able to back it up. If we’re all allowed to fall back on “because someone else says so” then this just turns into a big game of cut and paste and link. Which gets real old real fast.

  96. btodd August 7, 2007 5:32 pm Reply

    END TIMES WROTE: “Dear btodd,

    I have never deliberately lied to you in any manner.”

    I asked you no less than three times during our recent conversations here to clear up the fact that you quoted me directly, and then misrepresent the quote in the very same post! As I put it at the time, either you made a mistake and didn’t read it carefully, or you purposely misrepresented it. I was perfectly willing to let you admit it to be an honest mistake, but since you refused to even address it, I had no choice but to consider it dishonesty that you were not going to admit. I don’t believe for a second that you missed all three of my requests for you to clear up the matter, either.

    Btodd

  97. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 7, 2007 5:59 pm Reply

    Dear juridical darling

    “……assume I have no qualifications or affiliations. Focus on my arguments, not me.”

    excellent point, thankyou for making it. The tone of the page lowered quite markedly just recently and your comment might help to raise it.

    Now I have listened to a number of commentators on this issue.

    Teachers are free to teach whatever they like so long as they cover the curricula and do no violate stuff like ‘hate speech’.

    the supreme court ruled, I believe, that school boards could not make creation science topics mandatory; not that they could not be taught – but that the various boards and councils could not require them to be taught in like manner as the state sanctioned curricula – there is a vast difference.

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    below is just one of my responses to the questions you posed. I actually wrote this over a month ago fairly quickly. I had intended to get back to it and revise/edit/ annotate and formally reference. but the fact is I just don’t have the time for this right now – so I am sending to you as a very incomplete piece just for discussion. It is really unfortunate that we don’t have Samphire’s address to elicit his comments on the workings of “city of london corporation”. there really is a lot more [a lot lot more] to write about this subject but I shall leave it unsaid for the time being. these then are the preliminary notes and the beginning of a response that I don’t have time to expand on right now. thanks for your patience.

    /////////////////////////

    2. What evidence, exactly, do you have that the British Accredited Registry exists?

    Butterworths: “Bar: A notional partition”…., unquote: compare “notional” to “actual”
    :Bar Association {from Butterworths also}: ……bar associations also exist in jurisdictions where there is no formal division between solicitors and barristers.” unquote: Why then does something exist when the basis for its existence is merely “notional” and there is not one formal requirement/ reason to distinguish it; no overtly evident purpose requiring it to exist? How does something exist de jure at law to begin with? How must an association exist in order to have its existence recognized at law? You will recall that the “society of friends” is the church that is not a church because the church in those foundational days of the society was constrained by state controls, intimidation and coercion.
    From Webster’s Third International Edtn: Bar 2(a) a similar piece of wood or iron metal so fixed as to obstruct passage through any opening. 3(a)the railing in a court that encloses the place about the judge, where prisoners are stationed for arraignment, trial or sentence or where business of the court is transacted in civil cases ……. (ii) court, tribunal (iv) any “authority” or tribunal that renders judgment or makes final evaluation (b)(i) the barrier or partition in the English Inns of Court that formerly separated seats of benchers from the body of the hall occupied by students who in time were called to take their place within the barrier to enter into debates in the house – so called “utter bar” (c) railing in a room, office, or hall of assembly in order to reserve space for those having special privileges.
    So what do we get?: an association of nominal or notional separation to preserve privileges for those in authority deriving its origin from the Inns of Court, London:- Lincoln’s Inn ,Gray’s Inn, Inner Temple and Middle Temple all being located in or near the Sovereign City of London? [called to the bar, to be called within the bar, to be appointed to the bar]
    Is ‘BAR’ being used in modern times as an acronym for something that only ever notionally existed at its inception intellectually legitimate? The international BAR association is in Stephen Street, London. [10th Floor, 1 Stephen Street, Borough of Camden, London W1T 1AT, United Kingdom]. Middle Temple and Inner Temple are liberties of the City of London, which means they are within the historic boundaries of the City but are not subject to its jurisdiction. They are sovereign self governing enclaves; not governed by the City of London Corporation. They operate as their own local authorities. Gray’s Inn and Lincoln’s Inn are in the London Borough of Camden (formerly in the Borough of Holborn ), just by the border with the City of London. They have no such status as local authorities. This is where the international BAR association offices are but is that where it is formally domiciled?
    Is the BAR then a great trick of gamesmanship? [1. the use of methods, esp. in a sports contest, that are dubious or seemingly improper but not strictly illegal. 2. the technique or practice of manipulating people or events so as to gain an advantage or outwit one's opponents or competitors], modern or ancient? The Inns of Court Regiment is also known as ‘The Devil’s Own’.
    Did ‘BAR’ ever specifically, overtly or covertly, mean British Accredited Registry or some other acrostic or acronym? There is or should be little doubt that the British “Bar Council” keep a register/roll of those whom they recognize. To the best of my knowledge traditionally one had to be invited, called, chosen, admitted. What is the relationship now between the International BAR association and the Barristers of Middle Temple and Inner Temple? And if there is some supra-organizational structure or hierarchy, either formal or informal, within or operating out of an autonomous self governing enclave would anyone ever admit to it; or whom could compel those who know to answer?
    Does the IBA provide models for/ or examples of articles for charter; does it provide any auditing or accreditation process or recommendations? At this stage, I don’t know. The really big question is: If it was the Crown of England that ordered the establishment of a registry of British Accredited Barristers at Law, where is the Crown of England located? Middle Temple, Inner Temple, City of London, United Kingdom – or somewhere else?
    Is it legitimate to refer to a Crown of England sanctioned Registry of British Accredited Barristers at Law as a British Accredited Registry or British Accreditation Registry ?
    Malaysian foreign students it seems are at least one group of people who want a coveted title “British barrister-at-law” [see:http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/7/8/nation/18177642&sec=nation. From whence does your own BAR association epistemologically derive its origin? And are the connections through Masonry or other fraternities far more British than any strictly republican would ever acknowledge in print? The word brotherhood itself derives from commerce and has an aspect of a "trading company" or guild. [http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-dictionary-b.htm]
    Bar Standards Board
    289-293 High Holborn
    Borough of Camden 
    London 
    WC1V 7HZ
    Bar Council
    289-293 High Holborn
    Borough of Camden
    London
    WC1V 7HZ
    ps [or Aside]. I wouldn’t expect to find the articles of association for ‘skull and bones’ publicly listed either; but supposedly there would be something to read on the Russell Trust Association.
    [aside1:] BAR as a recognized ‘modern’ acronym stands for Base [see: a game, sometimes called Prisoners' base] Address [see: to prepare oneself] Register.
    [aside 2:] It is debatable whether or not “infinity” has existence in this particular time-space universe – the fact that it may not exist in empirical reality doesn’t stop people referring to it vigorously in mathematics and other “notional” and theoretical contexts – like “zero” and “naught” it becomes an essential tool for explanation.
    [aside 3:] I have one Freemason friend who insists that there is more than one “Crown” existing as a distinct entity in connection with the governance of the Great Britain – the bible itself contains allusions to many crowns in diverse places. If there is one Crown for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and another or other Crown for City of London, or for Middle Temple and Inner Temple, who is wearing those other Crowns? Just the names Middle Temple and Inner Temple suggest Masonic connections.
    [aside 4:] the Oxford also has Bar: 2(b) an iron bar used in breaking criminal on the wheel …..24 to be called to the bar, to be called within the bar, to be appointed to the bar ….25 the whole body of barristers practicing within a particular ……
    [aside 5:] barrister: probably from “bar” and “legister”
    [aside 6:] Fleet Street, in City of London is the location to the old Bank of England, build on an ancient temple to Mithras.

    /////////// have an extra nice day /////////////////

  98. Three Crosses August 7, 2007 6:02 pm Reply

    To tobejustlikejesus:
    Well said, everyone needs to be reminded of that often.
    three crosses

  99. Learned Hand August 7, 2007 8:41 pm Reply

    EndTimes,

    I am sorry that you had a bad biology professor in college. That may explain your ignorance of evolutionary theory, although I do not see how it excuses your decision to hold yourself out as as knowledgeable on the subject while making egregiously simple errors about the nature of the science. Evolution is, again, not the result of “blind chance.” You may have, at some point in your apparently long-distant college course, have heard the term “natural selection.” If you’ve ever had the benefit of a course in statistics, you may be aware that selection is by definition a non-random process. You may wish to read up on the subject of evolution, in which case I recommend Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.” You appear to be much more concerned with the speck in your professor’s eye than the beam in your own, however, so I predict that you will continue to misrepresent science. As I’ve said, what I’m learning from commenters such as yourself, CreationCD, and Three Crosses is that the appearance of piety is much more importance than actual wisdom, knowledge, or even basic honesty.

    Moreover, your education in biology appears to have frozen decades ago. Assuming that you are both truthful and factually correct regarding the conflation of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory at the time you attended college, these areas of study are no longer part of a single, inseparable theory. Evolutionary theory stands on the study of replicators, not the initial origins of replicators. You may wish to continue your education, rather than remaining mired in what you recall of your decades-old and apaprently dimly-remembered, poorly-understood undergraduate courses.

    Maturekid,

    I notice that the only source in your list of “comprehensive resource list on the E vs C topic” is a single website. While convenient, websites are not a “comprehensive resource” when it comes to a topic as broad, deep, and complex as evolutionary biology. You would find more, and more reliable, information in textbooks. Once again, I suggest Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.” The single most common error I see here is an egregious misunderstanding of the most basic elements of the science, such as the nature of natural selection. (I’m still flabbergasted tat Three Crosses believes that individual organisms evolve through conscious thought, and that EndTimes defended this nonsense. There’s simply no excuse for graduating high school with such an atrocious misunderstanding of the tenets of biology, even if you reject them.)

    Also, the link seems to be to a domain squatter. Perhaps you meant .org, instead of .com? Frankly, I think the sites at .com and .org are about equivalent, as far as factual information about biology goes.

    GORGE,

    Thank you for your testimony. Your story is probably fairly typical, in that creationists’ approach to science is determined in a matter of minutes by their perceived personal revelations. Please understand that objective science is not, and cannot, be reliant on religious experiences. One reason for this is that your personal religious revelation is no more relevant or valid to me than that of a devout Hindu, Muslim, or Scientologist, each of whom could claim to be just as persuaded by their subjective religious experiences as you are by yours. Hard, testable, repeatable results are all that can be objectively relied upon in the physical sciences, and it is these that >99% of scientists find in evolution but not creationism. Would your faith truly be injured by the discovery of ideologically-prohibited facts?

  100. Learned Hand August 7, 2007 8:44 pm Reply

    (Please excuse me; I’m posting this out of order. I wrote it before, and intended to post it before, my prior missive.)

    In your comments above, you said that the a similar case is still going in Louisiana. WHY? It seems to me if they (the people) were wrong, they could prove it quickly and put all those “tas protestors” out fast like they did to Kent Hovind.

    No, I didn’t. The Louisiana case is done. The case the article is talking about is still ongoing, which is one reason why the article’s claims are bogus. The other reason is that the case the article discusses is *not* about income tax. It is about the First Amendment right to advocate allegedly criminal behavior. As I said, I seriously doubt that the court will even address the tax claims in that case.

    Of course, it took them over 20 years in Kent’s case from what I understand and then they had to come up with the “structuring” law.

    No, they didn’t. The structuring law is old hat, and not something that was invented to get Mr. Hovind. He’s relatively small fry as far as banking criminals go. It may surprise you to learn that the IRS is not a huge, Big Brother-style agency with the resources and manpower to track every American citizen from birth to death. Tax enforcement is a difficult and resource-intensive task, and even criminals who think they’re being open and obvious in their illegality may slip between the cracks as the government’s investigators focus on the cases that will bring the most return to the public.

    Maybe we need the national ID so planes won’t run into buildings anymore or is it really to keep a closer watch on Americans and take what freedom in the natural that remains. Maybe that is why so many young people are behind Ron Paul since he is for the Constitution and against corrupt systems like the federal reserve or irs.

    No, the national ID is actually a beacon that allows the NSA to focus its mind-control rays more carefully on your brain. If the rays don’t focus properly, people won’t report to the New World Order holding pens (which the sheeple call liberal universities), and then where will the UFOs get their next shipment of slaves?

    To help you in regards to your doubts, I would like to challenge you to go ot the link supplied and watch the movie entitled, “America:Freedom to Fascism”. Scroll down and you will see a person’s hand tied behind his/her back with the American flag. Take an hour and 49 minutes out of your time and watch it, it couldn’t hurt and it might help you immensely in regards to Constitutional law or common law. If you don’t want to take an hour and 49 minutes out of your time then at least watch the 4 minute trailer, it might get you hungry for truth.

    I have watched A:FtF. It’s awful, and completely dishonest. Russo’s explanation of the tax law is one lie after another; even the *quotes* he uses to open segments of the movie are mostly taken out of context or, in a few cases, completely fictitious. The case law quotes he uses are utterly inapposite, and frankly quite stupid – he quotes from Supreme Court cases from the 20s as if they’re controlling law for the points he’s making, without ever mentioning that the Supreme Court has addressed the same arguments he’s making and called them frivolous. He’s flat-out wrong on the law, but he knows that his audience will believe whatever they’re told, so he just loads up the lies and lets fly with both barrels. There is a conspiracy to deceive you about the tax law, but it’s the Russos and PenaltyProtester.coms of the world behind it. See some criticism of the movie’s outrageous factual misrepresentations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism and especially at http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm. Russo is a liar, and he gets away with it because his preferred audience doesn’t mind a lie, as long as it’s profitable to them.

    I gave you three scriptures to show how simple salvation is but if you have no idea that we offended a holy God by our pride, arrogance, evil, just overall sin then you would see no need for the Lord Jesus Christ.

    The thing is, I know from your adherence to creationism and tax protestation that you’re a credulous person. As an attorney, I know first-hand that the tax nonsense you’re spouting is completely false. So why should I trust your statements on religion, when I know your statements on the law are untrustworthy? Adherence to such dishonest and manipulative groups has consequences, and one of those consequences is that you aren’t a trustworthy person to someone who knows the facts, and your attempts at evangelism suffer accordingly.

    In closing if you think Kent Hovind’s sentence was mild then you should be super thankful that the “Sun M Moon” didn’t get near that time, just a few months and he “stole” a lot more than Kent “stole” from our poor government.

    Moon is a hell of a lot more dangerous to the public than Hovind ever was. I was disgusted that Congresspeople let him play his little coronation game on (I believe) public property. I assume that’s something we agree upon?

    EndTimes said, “Lastly, how can any sane or rational man watch the links by CreationCD with all of the incredible molecular machines of life and believe that blind chance has created these engineering marvels?”

    Your misunderstanding of the science is typical of someone who gets their biology from creationist pamphlets instead of text books and journals. Nothing evolves from “blind chance.” Natural selection, being by definition a selective process, is the *opposite* of “blind chance.” I do not expect this minor revelation to affect your thinking, which appears to be utterly devoted to confirming your preconceptions regardless of the evidence, but I hope that no one who’s still thinking about these issues reads your words and takes them to be an honest or educated representation of biology.

  101. Joshua Berndt August 7, 2007 9:13 pm Reply

    Here are a few samples I found that are supposed to work for using smilies on this blog. I have separated each text emoticon by a blank space just after the first symbol so that they are not rendered into graphic smilies. Also, if you place your mouse over a graphic smiley it should show you the text that made it.

    : ) : -) : smile: : D : -D : grin: : ( : -( : sad:
    : o : -o : eek: 8 O 8 -O : shock: : ? : -? : ???:
    8 ) 8 -) : cool: : x : -x : mad: : P : -P : razz:
    : | : -| : neutral: ; ) ; -) : wink: : lol: : oops:
    : cry: : evil: : twisted: : roll: : !: : ?:
    : idea: : arrow: : mrgreen:

    For more on smilies, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_emoticons and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticons

    I hope this helps to enrich the posts here. Smilies can help make the emotions and intent of a post clearer. There is then a fewer chances for misunderstandings. For instance, if I jokingly mock someone in here, they may take it as a serious hit. E.G. I write a post/message directed at someone, and as we near the end of it: blah blah blah blah blah. You dork!

    Now the receiver of the post may take it seriously, but if I write it this way,

    blah blah blah blah blah. You dork! ;^)

    then it is taken with an understanding that I am razzing him/joking with him. Or is that “about him.” [8^0)

    P.S. Paul Abramson, being the blog Editor and therefore the computer guy/nerd ;^) should have the following as his symbol, right? 8-B

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    sure, yup! 8-B ]

    http://www.homestead.com/GodsGospel/GodsGospel.html

  102. desiree August 7, 2007 10:47 pm Reply

    THIS BLOG IS A GENERAL COMMENT ON THE INCOME TAX – not directed with an opinion either way of the kent hovind case

    I just wanted that to be clear. I’m not saying I support Kent… or that I don’t support Kent. I am still in the process of learning what exactly happened. I attempted to ask that last month… but was thought to be someone with bad intentions. I’m not. I just know that people are saying false things. I want the truth. I thought supporters would show the truth. Because from what I’ve seen… people who don’t support Kent have either lied or spent their time smearing his character and enjoying his situation. To those people… I would like to say.. that is very cold and rude. Just because someone says something you don’t agree with… you shouldn’t enjoy his situation! If roles were switched.. I don’t think he would find joy in that for you! He comes across in his postings as a very kind and caring person… who lived his life to show TRUTH.

    I’m sure this has been said before. I don’t know who stands where… I get a lil confused… being that I’m new to this site. I’ll let you know a fact. THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO PAY AN INCOME TAX!

    If you disagree… that is fine. I would simply suggest that if you haven’t watched Aaron Russo’s film called America:Freedom to Facism.. you should. Go to google… type America: Freedom to Facism and look under videos. I’ll attempt to post a link. I hope it works. The film is amazing. It shows you how and why. Watch it a few times! Understand.. that if you want the truth… then approach with an open heart to see what is being said. This film is calm and the people speaking know their facts. It isn’t some radical movement. Very calm and educated people are speaking. Very important to know.

    Now.. my opinion at this time… is that I will pay my taxes. The courts are not being fair. The courts are being injust. They are NOT allowing Supreme Court ruling in the lower courts. Which is shocking. People are being called tax cheats and put downs are used instead of rational conversations. It is hard to believe that this could be true. Simply because so many people think of America as this amazing free country. We were once. I don’t think that is true today. I think things are changing. Most free societies don’t last. Why? Because we are humans… we have greedy hearts… crave control. Trying to be gods… when there is ONE GOD!

    I suggest to pay taxes because the law will most likely come down on you. Just because you are arrested and sentenced… doesn’t not mean that it was JUST. I will, however, pay so as to avoid a jail sentence of 10 – 15 some years. I would like to use this time to spread the word of God and prepare of His return!

  103. desiree August 7, 2007 11:05 pm Reply

    Random thoughts I’d like to express:

    I can’t speak for all Christians. But I can speak for the myself. God doesn’t force His law on people. He doesn’t force you to be born again.. or believe in Him… or be baptized in Him. He doesn’t force your thoughts and actions. You have free will. You have that free will thanks to Him. As Christians, we simply should NOT and cannot force anyone to believe or do anything they don’t want to. This is an example.. I would NEVER DO THIS! haha.. too much confusion these days… so I want to make that clear. But.. if someone put a gun to your head… and said… repent, be baptized, and be born again. Believe in Jesus Christ and honor Him. And you did all of those things. God wouldn’t accept that. He knows your hearts and minds. He knows how you feel and how you think. He doesn’t want to force you. He gave you his Word. The Bible. The Bible is a letter from Him to you. And prayer is a conversation.. speak to Him! He wants you to love Him.. He loves you.

    For those who don’t believe in the Bible. I’d love to ask you.. have you researched it? Have you read it? I bet I could shake that foundation of those thoughts! The old testament was written before the new testament. There are prophecies that were in the old testament.. that were fulfilled in the new testament sometimes 700 years later! There are prophecies in the Bible… both old and new… which are being fulfilled now… and some have come to pass just within the last 100 years. That book is 2000 some years old! Before you express disinterest in the Bible. Maybe you should look into it a bit.

    Why is it hard to believe? Why are Christians silly and crazy? Why is believing in Christ and believing in young earth creationism, and prophecy too difficult to wrap your mind around? We live in a world where our sense of reality is defined. This is logical… therefore that cannot be true. Who shaped our logic? Who says what is fact and what is not?

    I’ll make everyone reading this a promise. You will see God one day. I promise you. You will see Him.

    In my opinion concerning evolution. Evolution is a religion as much as a science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism! What is evolving now? You should never take your beliefs from a person. Not from me. Not from a pastor. Not from a doctor. Not from a scientist. You should take your beliefs from a God. From the Bible. It is the ONLY TRUTH. After all of my days of searching… that was my conclusion. If you disagree. I accept that. I won’t try and change your mind. I only suggest that if you are having an opinion… research both sides. If you do research the Bible. I suggest the KJV. I also suggest that when someone tells you what it says… ask them for a verse. They might need a moment to remember and look up… but let them show you. You you look it up for yourself. Too many Christians who do believe… take what they believe from a man. Not that the man is wrong. But… we need to open the Bible and look ourselves. So that we may not be deceived.

    God Bless

    Desirée

  104. Elethiomel August 8, 2007 3:55 am Reply

    regarding the discussion between Geno and Three Crosses:

    —–

    Geno: I have omitted part of your statement i think I addressed it already, if not please let me know.”a neutrino burst consistent with physics predictions of what takes place when a supernova happens; a supernova explosion; ???????”

    I believe it was a “plausible explanation” not a “prediction” these two words are often interchanged. A lot of people try to explain why something might have happened. Then if they come up with an explanation that pleases them. They assume the explanation as a prediction of what might happen in the future (speculation), actually still in the realm of theory or hypothesis.

    Geno:”Call it an “eruption”, “explosion”, “event”, “core collapse”, or whatever else you like. We know there was a supernova because we SAW it. In fact, Sn1987a is likely the most studied single astronomical object of the last 20 years. This is because it is the largest supernova observed from Earth in more than 400 years and (because of the neutrino burst) we had telescopes on in within MINUTES of the actual light from the event reaching Earth.”

    I understand we know it got real bright and went out, but that doesn’t tell us how far away it was or what the speed of light was then, or what external factors may have effected the light(example some theorize gravity can bend or alter the speed of light black holes etc.[source]http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/blackholes.php). I think one could argue that the middle of a supernova might not be a vacuum. Wouldn’t gravity and the gravitational field change with either a “explosion”, “core collapse”. You are theorizing what may have happened.

    ———

    The neutrino pulse prior to SN1987A was a prediction from our understanding of nuclear fusion. In certain fusion events neutrinos are emitted, and in the final hours of the life of a star before it explodes (for those that do explode) a massive amount of fusion takes place as heavier elements such as silicon fuse together and hence a far greater amount of neutrinos are emitted. This takes place as an amount of material of the order of the entire mass of our sun is fused in a period of days. The final burst of neutrinos comes as the core collapses when the density of the core overcomes the Chandrasekhar limit – electrons merge with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos (conservation of lepton number) The vast majority of the energy in a supernova (around 99%) is carried away in this pulse of neutrinos. This has been well expected to be an observation of supernovae well before 1987A. The physics employed in the understanding of the fusion and neutrino pulse is the same as that which governs the core of our sun and fusion reactors. SN1987A was evidence that supported the scientific theories surrounding stellar mechanics, nuclear fusion and atomic physics, each of which are independently supported in a great many other ways.

    Three Crosses says that we saw it get bright and go out, and that doesn’t tell us how far away it was. Well it does actually. Light travelled to earth via two paths in this instance, one from the star to the outer dust clouds emitted from the star then reflected and to earth, and another path directly to earth. This allows us to form a triangle which shows us how far away the star is by trigonometry. This measure of distance is independent of the speed of light, so even if the speed had changed over time, we would still get the correct distance to the star. The actual speed of light itself can be deduced to be the same at the time from other observations (for example the radioactive decay rates are the same at SN1987A as can be seen from Cobalt decay, which is the same there as it is here, and also the physics behind the explosion would be different if c was different, and again, the physics observed as SN1987A is the same as here)

    Additional issues altering the speed of light would be highly observable. Black holes do not alter the speed of light (only passing through a meterial can slow it down) but they can bend light, however lets say the core of SN1987A became a black hole, this would not affect the speed of light around the explosion at all, since we are talking about light well away from the hole itself anyway. Remember that the gravitational force of an object is proportional to the inverse square of the distance to the centre of mass of the object, so if the earth were turned into a little black hole, the moon would stay in exactly the orbit that it currently is, and any light passing outside the current radius of the earth would bend in exactly the way it does now. Bending the light would also be very observable since it would create a lensing effect. Indeed we use this lensing effect to observe many objects.

    Three crosses talks about the centre of the supernova being a vacuum… why would it be? I don’t think anyone was suggesting it was, were they? if they were, they’d be wrong.

    Again the physics surrounding supernovae is well (not perfectly) understood, and events such as SN1987A have supported the predictions expected from current day physics.

  105. DQ August 8, 2007 4:51 am Reply

    How come the comment that I posted on 8/7 at 9:50 am is still “awaiting moderation” when many comments posted after that have already been “moderated”?

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: In some posts something catches my eye, so I bypass the posting at that time, because I want to read it again later to decide whether or not to comment on it. P.A. ]

  106. Q August 8, 2007 8:18 am Reply

    Greetings,

    My family enjoys your videos and do believe your “theory” of a young earth. I do also believe that we live in the best dang country in the world. The collection plate (taxes) get past and we must contribute to it. Not many other places in world can offer the opportunites we have here.

    Blessings to you and your family,

    Jeff

  107. darling August 8, 2007 8:23 am Reply

    desiree Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 10:47pm:

    “THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE TO PAY AN INCOME TAX!”

    Yes there is, it’s right here:
    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

  108. DQ August 8, 2007 9:54 am Reply

    The editor said: DQ – I read your post through a couple of times. It is so blasphemous and insulting to others … that I want to ask you to please rewrite it in a more persuasive (and less overly insulting) manner. Please.

    I must say I’m baffled. I can’t remember exactly what I wrote, just the gist of it, but I can’t believe it was more insulting to you than anything written by Learned Hand. As far as blasphemous, unless you mean insulting god is blasphemy, I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but I think god is a big boy and can handle anything I might care to dish out.

    And the last paragraph of my post could not be considered insulting or blasphemous, since it was a legitimate, honest question. Please consider reposting at least that last paragraph, as I am interested in the answer.

    There are (at least) six definitions of “evolution”, of course: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm (If #6 is shown in the lab, that does NOT make the other five true, of course.)

    Taking your definition of evolution from a creationist web site is not the best idea in the world. Actually, one through four on that list have nothing to do with evolution (although they are very interesting questions that need answers), and five and six are the same thing. I don’t know why people always include cosmology and abiogenesis in with evolution, but they are different fields.

    The real definition of “evolution” is “a change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next.” It is important to distinguish between “evolution” as defined here and the “theory of evolution,” which describes mechanisms that cause, facilitate, or result from evolution. “Evolution”, or a change in allele frequencies between generations, is not in dispute by anyone that I am aware of, as it can be readily observed and has been many many times. The theory of evolution is open to debate as far as the workings of the different mechanisms and effects thereof.

    You can find a more detailed explanation of what I’m saying here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

    I would also suggest you read these sites:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
    and
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    The latter contains very many examples of evidence for “macroevolution.” I have more to say but I’m going to wait and see if you will post anything I say anymore, or if I am just wasting my time.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Okay, I went to all three links. Interesting stuff, but still no proof. Where was it? I/we could show many, many examples of #6. But there is still not a single example of #5. Right? (The evolutionists always want to show lots of #6's; then they make that leap of faith that #5 must then sometimes happen.) There is too much encoded information in the DNA; mutations do not help but hurt your case. Heredity & variation have built-in limits. This shows wise design; evidence of a Creator that built-in a degree of variability within descendants. #6 being evidenced often but without any of #5 - and it actually evidences scientific creation theory. If interested, please see my "open letter" to "National Geographic" from April 2005: http://www.creationism.org/articles/NatlGeogOpenLtr.htm P.A. ]

  109. Geno August 8, 2007 10:06 am Reply

    from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 5:59pm:
    Teachers are free to teach whatever they like so long as they cover the curricula and do no violate stuff like ‘hate speech’.

    ***********
    Pi:
    I will attribute this comment to a lack of understanding of US Constitutional law.

    Teachers are NOT free to teach whatever they like. For example, we are not free to teach Buddhism in our science classes. If we were free to teach whatever we like, then we should be able to teach this religion:
    http://members.aol.com/smcpage1/manifest.htm
    (If the link doesn’t work, simply do a search for “The Service of Mankind Church”.)

    In the US, teachers do NOT teach religion in science class. The proper place for the teaching of religion is in the home and in the church. NOT in public schools.

  110. Geno August 8, 2007 10:22 am Reply

    Maturekid
    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 7:53am:
    Do note they define “evolution” as macro-evolution and the origin of life. They include both as before you can start talking about macro, you first have to show where it started from – empirically. They define micro-evolution as “selection” or “variation of species” or kinds. Which is a reasonable differentiation. If the textbooks used that differentiation, I’m certain there wouldn’t be as many issues. This is something Kent has commented on a number of times in his seminar tapes and is a fair charge.
    *******
    Pi:
    I used the Holt, Rinehart, and Winston textbook. In it, evolution is defined as:
    “A change of allele distribution in a population over time.” That’s it. No more, no less.

    The book has a 5 chapter unit on evolution. It devotes about 1/3 of a page to the origin of life. In that partial section, the book points out that we do not knnow about the origin of life, but that there are a number of hypotheses that are being investigated.

    I point out to my students that, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, we will probably never know how life originated. The evidence science would need to determine that has long since been destroyed. The best science can hope to do is provide a POSSIBLE pathway to life.

  111. DQ August 8, 2007 11:45 am Reply

    To the editor:
    Thank you for approving my entire post of August 8 at 9:54. I notice that you took out my HTML markup, without which it is much more difficult to parse my post. Is there a reason for this? I am very careful to close all my tags properly so as not to mess up the rest of the entries, and I notice that other peoples’ HTML is allowed to stay.

    I am disappointed that you did not address my question that you deleted and that I asked to be reposted. What was it about that question that could be considered remotely insulting? I ask that you please repost it, or at least explain why it was so offensive.

    As for the difference between “#5″ and “#6″, as you label “macro” and “micro” evolution, I maintain that there is no difference. What causes #6? A change in DNA. What causes #5? A change in DNA. The only difference between the two is the amount of time and the number of variations. If you accept that #6 happens, and you allow enough time for #6s to accumulate, eventually, after a great deal of time, you have #5. So they are really the same thing, #5 is just what eventually happens after enough occurrences of #6. I realize that we disagree about the amount of time available for #6s to accumulate, and we could go back and forth about that forever. But it is not correct to say that there is any fundamental difference between #5 and #6, because they are the same thing.

    I followed you link and read your article. I was shocked when I read your assertion that teaching evolution encourages rape. This is an absurd statement, and does nothing to advance your cause. Besides that, talk about living in glass houses- here is something that I consider “encouraging rape” (not to mention murdering children.)

    “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have no known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

    THAT, my friend, is encouraging rape. It’s from Deuteronomy 31.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: This planet is owned. Your soul is owned. For specific battles the Children of Israel were given specific instructions. That sometimes meant killing all human and animal life in a town. You and I are not the center of attention. Get used to the idea now, or find out the hard way later. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." And as I stated in the letter to National Geographic: "I will pit the values taught during 2,000 years of Christianity (individuals and societies being lifted up) against the past 140 years of (murderous) evolution-taught-values any day!" Sodom & Gomorrah were wiped off the map. The entire pre-flood world was buried in water and deep sedimentary layers. ...This planet is owned. P.A. ]

  112. Three Crosses August 8, 2007 11:47 am Reply

    To Elethiomel:
    First thank you for explaining some of the theories involved with such detail, I appreciate that.
    ” SN1987A was evidence that supported the scientific theories surrounding stellar mechanics, nuclear fusion and atomic physics, each of which are independently supported in a great many other ways.”

    I also appreciate that there is evidence supporting the theory. It’s just that we don’t know for sure that the theories are correct we only know what we observe. We can observe a suspended black non transparent balloon at a distance(1000 yds. for instance) through binoculars. We can also observe an obsidian ball the same distance away or maybe twice the distance. both would appear the same size, color, shape, and finish. Each one could even have a six foot tree near it. Without going there we would never know exactly what it was or what the difference was. We would have a lot of evidence size, shape, and maybe distance(even though heat rising could make it difficult) that would tell us the two objects “could” be the same. You could except this evidence to mean that your assumption is right. You would however be completely wrong.

    “Additional issues altering the speed of light would be highly observable. Black holes do not alter the speed of light (only passing through a meterial can slow it down) but they can bend light, however lets say the core of SN1987A became a black hole, this would not affect the speed of light around the explosion at all, since we are talking about light well away from the hole itself anyway. Remember that the gravitational force of an object is proportional to the inverse square of the distance to the centre of mass of the object, so if the earth were turned into a little black hole, the moon would stay in exactly the orbit that it currently is, and any light passing outside the current radius of the earth would bend in exactly the way it does now. Bending the light would also be very observable since it would create a lensing effect. Indeed we use this lensing effect to observe many objects.”

    I don’t know if you wear glasses. This however could be used to point out that you would only catch a lensing effect at an angle and even this could be faked through use of a astigmatism or grinding a lens to compensate for it. I don’t understand using mass and gravity on light I don’t think light has much if any mass. If the moon’s orbit is changing now I assume it would continue to change. I don’t know whether or not the Earth could change into a black hole. I know some theories say it could but this is the problem with theories. I am however fascinated with interstellar mechanics and astronomy. I appreciate that you realize that they are theories and I greatly appreciate you helping me to better understand a subject I don’t really know that much about.

    Elethiomel: “Three crosses talks about the centre of the supernova being a vacuum… why would it be? I don’t think anyone was suggesting it was, were they? if they were, they’d be wrong.”

    Three crosses: “I think one could argue that the middle of a supernova might not be a vacuum. Wouldn’t gravity and the gravitational field change with either a “explosion”, “core collapse”.”

    I think we might have agreed there. I made the statement about the vacuum because the studies on the speed of light, I had been reading led me to surmise that the speed of light is different between a vacuum and the lack of it. Like maybe one was a possibly translucent/transparent media and the vaccum was the lack of it.

    Thank you so much for addressing my statements, with love three crosses

  113. Geno August 8, 2007 11:51 am Reply

    Note: To ThreeCrosses, Elethiomel has provided an excellent explanation of the PREDICTED neutrino pulse when a supernova event takes place. In short, there are neutrino detectors placed around the world. A “burst” of neutrinos (about 20, or so, IIRC) was detected and the direction was determined. A notice was sent to every major telescope in the world (that could see the area of the sky from which the neutrino’s came). As a result, the first images of the Sn1987a explosion were obtained within 10 minutes of the event. I’ll leave it at that but will deal with some other issues you raised in another post.

    GORGE
    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 3:48pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Dear Geno,
    You said:
    “You really should have read the AIG comments. They explained it pretty well. Simply stated, under End Times explanation, any event we observe in the sky past 6000 light years simply never happened and the object never existed. That makes God a liar in the heavens themselves.

    GORGE:
    Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading your work.
    ***********
    Geno:
    Thanks. Few actually go there to see what they are actually arguing against.
    ***********
    ***********

    GORGE:
    Dr Hovind refers to this subject matter on a number of his seminar DVDs; he too states the possibility of time differentiation.
    ***********
    Geno:
    Mr. Hovind is suggesting Dr. Humphreys’ “white hole” cosmology (or something like it). YEC like to think that simply because Einstein mentions time differentiation, all they need do is mention it and they are home free. That is not the case.

    Einstein presents exactly two conditions under which the rate of time can be changed.
    1) Extreme (near “c”) velocities. For example, if Andromeda were travelling at near “c” with respect to Earth, it would be possible for very LONG periods of time to pass on Andromeda while very short times were passing on Earth. Thus, it would be possible for 2 million years to pass on Andromeda while only 6000 years is passing on Earth. (Andromeda is the most distant object visible to the unaided eye at a bit over 2 million ly from Earth.) The problem with this one is that Andromeda is not travelling at a velocity anywhere near “c”. The forces involved in slowing a galaxy from near “c” to a very small value are HUGE. There is no evidence that supports this aspect of Einsteinian time dilation.

    2) Extreme (near black hole) gravity. For example, if Earth were inside the event horizon of a black hole, time on Earth would practically stop while time in the rest of the universe continues. Unfortunately, the time dilation factor from gravity is limited by the inverse square law. (F(g)=Gm1m2/(r^2)) This means, for example, that for a galaxy a billion light years from Earth to slow time such that 6000 years was passing on Earth while 60,000,000 years was passing on that galaxy, the galaxy have time passing 10,000 times faster than on Earth. Thus, the galaxy would need to be 100 times closer to Earth. That would be the galaxy would be only 10,000,000 ly from Earth. The Earth would need to travel 990,000,000 ly in only 1 billion years. There is no evidence of any object within a billion light years of Earth travelling at 99% “c”. The evidence does not support this aspect of Einsteinian time dilation either.

    In other words, Einstein’s findings that the rate of passage of time can be changed is of no help to YEC because they lack the evidence needed to apply Einstein. You can’t simply point at Einstein and say: “Hey, Einstein showed the rate of time can change.” UNLESS you are ALSO able to show that the conditions Einstein specifies exist(ed).
    ***************
    ***************

    GORGE:
    Your conclusion, seems to be a remarkable jump. The following links present a promising rejection, to your final declaration.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp

    He suggests that light may travel at an infinite velocity toward an observer
    **********
    Geno:
    This one is by “Robert Newton” which is a pseudonym for Dr. Jason Lisle. Dr. Lisle does present an interesting hypotheses as a solution. One of Dr. Lisle’s hypotheses is that God created the universe in such a way that the light from the stars would reach Earth on day 4 of creation week. It has two major problems for YEC: (a) it means that while Earth may be young, the rest of the universe is very old and (b) The sun is only 8 light-minutes from Earth. It it was not created until day 4, then you still need a source of light for days 1-3.

    Dr. Lisle’s other hypothesis is that light travels at an infinite velocity toward an observer, but at only half the speed of light when moving away from an observer. This would give us the present accepted value for “c” while making it possible for us to observe distant objects in the universe “instantly”. Unfortunately, Dr. Lisle also claims the hypothesis cannot be tested. It took me about one minute to figure out a way to test Dr. Lisle’s claims. His “problem” is that we can set clocks to read the same time then we can move one to a new location. He says (correctly) that by moving one of the clocks, we have changed it’s time, therefore we cannot test his hypothesis. There are two problems with this.
    1) One does not need to set the clocks then move them. Use three stations and place them in line with one exactly half way between the other two. Send a pulse from the middle station to set the clocks of the other two. They will now have the same time under either the standard way of thinking about “c” or Dr. Lisle’s proposal. It is now possible to send a pulse from one station to the other at a pre-determined time and test the hypothesis.
    2) Since Dr. Lisle suggests a light travels only half as fast in one direction, the slight time variation caused by moving the clocks in the first place is insignificant when compared to a doubling of the speed of light. So, while the “moved” clock in Dr. Lisle’s example would have its time modified, the change would not be significant in the experiment.

    Either way, the fact that a PhD in astrophysics couldn’t figure his way to this experiment says a LOT to me about the credibility of his claims.
    *********
    *********

    GORGE:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/01/reason-seven-supernova-1987a
    ********
    Geno:
    There are a number of claims here:
    1) “Light year” is a measure of distance, not time. True. However, we can apply the very simple equation (validated billions of times every year) that time = distance / velocity. This is interesting because as I’ve engaged in these discussions, I’ve observed YEC challenge first the distances (many of which are measured indirectly); then, when the distances are too well established to challenge, they challenge the velocity of light (which even the major Creation Ministries have been forced to back down from). Now, they are challenging “time”… this is their last desperate attempt to grasp a straw and escape the inevitable: time = distance/velocity.
    2) An “assumption” that light has always travelled at the same speed. Wrong. I have EVIDENCE that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a is the same as now. That evidence is in the decay times of the short half-life isotope 56Co. So, I do NOT “ASS-U-ME” the speed of light has been the same, I conclude it based on observational, physical, epirical evidence and measurements.
    2) An “assumption” that the effects of gravitational time dilation are “insignificant”. They are…. unless YEC can show they ARE significant. To date, actual evidence suppporting significant gravitational time dilation on Earth is glaringly absent.
    3) An “assumption” that the light arrived by “purely natural” means. I will grant, this is, in fact, an “assumption” of science. Science *must* assume that the natural laws apply at all times and in all places. When God chooses to suspend those laws (as is fully within His power), then science is stumped. Science is incompetent (yes, I said INCOMPETENT) to explore the supernatural. So, if you want to say: “God used supernatural means to make the light appear.” Fine. But the *scientific* discussion has ended, and there is no way I can present that “explanation” in a public school science class.

    The article closes by suggesting Dr. Humprheys’ “Starlight and Time”. I’ve explained many of the issues with Dr. Humpreys’ proposal above.

  114. Michael Deas August 8, 2007 12:26 pm Reply

    geno said:

    In the US, teachers do NOT teach religion in science class. The proper place for the teaching of religion is in the home and in the church. NOT in public schools.

    Well finally we agree. This would settle the whole silly debate, and the evolution theory would soon be would be just an embarrassing memory.

    Maybe then we could bring the standards back up from the dumbed down version we have today.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Okay - will fix today. P.A. ]

  115. CreationCD August 8, 2007 1:32 pm Reply

    *******************************************************
    Elethiomel
    Said this on August 3rd, 2007 2:03PM:
    Previous Thread:
    Knee-Mail Conversation between God and Simon the Zealot

    Why am I here?
    Well St Augustine makes the point that to link falsehoods with the Bible is to damage the Bible and to damage Christianity.

    If Kent is attempting to convince people that Christianity is right, but is doing so with shoddy science, then I worry that when people find out his science is wrong, that they may also ignore all the teachings from the Bible and fall away.

    I have seen it a tragically large number of times, where young people have learned proper science and have realized that their religious educators were wrong about the science, then assumed they were wrong about the Bible too.

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

    Dear Elethiomel,

    Glad to know why you’re here.

    So Creation Science is the biggest lie causing people to leave the faith?

    What St. Augustine might have said today…?

    In “The City of God”, Augustine also defended what would be called today as young Earth creationism. In the specific passage, Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans ** [The best science of day - DH], **and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) **[The most widely held theological opinion of the time - DH] ** that differed from the Church’s sacred writings:

    “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have [Evolved over long ages - DH]… They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”

    – Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, The City of God, Book 12: Chapt. 10 [AD 419].
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

    —– The question would be if Augustine would have traded the testimony of his eyes and reason in the plain reading of the text of Genesis for the Pope’s proclamation that there is no conflict between long ages and descent from a common ancestor with the teachings of the Bible. If not, the Pope would then proclaim to take away Augustine’s sainthood, and Augustine would most likely become a fundamental Baptist.

    Usually the reason those raised up and educated in the Christian faith believe they have been taught a lie and leave is much like the Humanist that Kent Hovind talks about in his question and answers seminar. This guy showed up as a counselor at a Christian Church Camp and begins telling the kids, “the bibles a good book but it contains a lot of errors and contradictions.” These kids have never been exposed to this and he shows them all these supposed errors (which we have shown have been around and have been answered since the 1700’s) and convinces them that the Bible is wrong and they have been deceived. Our kids need to see and hear us answer these challenges so that they know these challenges can be answered.

    Jesus made some seemingly crazy statements in John chapter 6 without clarifying or explaining what was going to happen. Everyone left but the twelve.

    Bible believing Christians are a threat to the Catholic Church. All reformations came about because someone read the Bible and decided to follow it instead of the Catholic traditions. I don’t doubt many Catholics spend a lot of their time refuting Genesis.

    Dr. Ken Miller:
    from the video btodd linked to in his August 6th, 2007, 2:29pm post.
    “I’m a Roman Catholic, I’m a theist in the broadest sense. I would say I believe in a designer, but you know what, I don’t believe in a deceptive one. One who would do this to try to fool us.”

    Doug Hove

    P.S.
    Thank you Ekkman for your August 6th, 2007, 2:14pm post.
    I did not realize that story was un-scriptural.
    What’s your best answer to the challenge
    “Well, if God created everything then God created evil. … then God is evil,”
    which has been brought up on this blogsite in various forms.

  116. lagomorph2 August 8, 2007 1:37 pm Reply

    The Editor said, in response to a posting by DQ, the following -

    “Heredity & variation have built-in limits.”

    I have heard this time and time again from creationists. But never, never, have they been able to say what these limits are, where one could find them, or what the mechanism of the limitation might be. At any given point in time a population that comprises a species has a given distribution of alleles – the “allele frequency” that DQ spoke of. If measured at some later time, the allele frequency will usually be observed to have changed (or shifted), especially if there was a change in selection pressure with respect to one or more of the alleles. Now you can consider this a new starting point. At a later time yet, there will be found further changes in the allele frequency, and this process will continue as long as the population exists. There is no genetic reason that this allele frequency distribution cannot continue to change over time in response to continued changes in selection pressure, chance, or random drift. In other words, the science of population genetics has tested the hypothesis that “Heredity & variation have built-in limits”, and many decades of research have failed to detect these hypothetical “built-in” limits.
    So if creationists are going to continue to make this claim, they should be prepared to back it up with empirical evidence – that is what science does.

    Regards,
    Lagomorph

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Good call. This is an important point in the debate. I would contend that in thousands of years of farming no one has ever seen corn seeds produce anything other than corn. And chickens only produce other chickens, period. There are no half-cat half-dog creatures running around. God made limited variation within each type/kind/sort of life. Each individual is unique and yet closely related to the others of its "kind". Speciation is irrelevant to the debate, I would contend. Varieties of species are still within "genetic remnant variation" or #6, "micro-evolution"; i.e. it can be predicted. Here is what was known back in 1925: http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/Predicmt02.htm

    If we combine this with the scientific evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old - then we can dispense with believed evolution, since it never had time to happen, nor is it possible genetically. The Planet Earth is young: http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/ P.A. ]

  117. mike_nevarr August 8, 2007 2:02 pm Reply

    In light of what Mr. Hovind has written, I feel compelled to let everyone on this blog know that T.D. Jakes is a Oneness Pentecostal. He is a modalist who does not believe in the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. To put it rather bluntly he is a false teacher and should not be listened to. This is not a minor matter of doctrine of which we can simply agree to disagree. No, T.D. Jakes is preaching a different ‘Jesus’ and a different gospel.

    http://jmoorhead.blogspot.com/2005/07/t-d-jakes.html

  118. Istvan August 8, 2007 2:14 pm Reply

    Anybody,

    I just imagined what the world would be like, if everybody on this planet believed in evolution. It was horrible. It reminded me of my childhood. I wish I had met a Young Earth Creationist when I was 8! I wish I had heard someone like Dr. Kent Hovind, when I turned 18! And I was so glad I heard a YEC when I was 23. The world has been a better place ever since.

    I believe creation should be taught in schools. And in science class. Absolutely. Why? Because that’s the place where souls are poisoned. Evolution is like a snake-bite. When you’re bit by a snake, you need treatment, antidote quickly, at best right away. Otherwise the poison will kill you.

    Evolutionists say there’s no God. This is what they teach in schools. That we’re nothing more than animals. But they are shocked when their friends or folks get shot in the street by a kid they taught evolution in school. Why are they so shocked? An animal killed another one. What’s the big deal? Survival of the fittest. That’s what the kid was taught in school. Now there’s a good student for you. He learned the lesson right. Right? Wrong!

    Teaching the theory of evolution has had and will continue to have repercussions. But of course, you evolutionists will deny that. It’s Bad News you’re spreading. And while you’re at it, you make sure people like Dr. Hovind get out of your way. ’5 years in prison? Not enough. Let’s give him 5 more!’

    Evolutionists, you don’t know what your doing. Science has changed so much over the past 2000 years. Scientists used to say many things in the past that you find ridiculous today. Today’s science will look silly in 20 years. The Bible is different. Its message has not changed over time. So if you want real hard evidence, read the Bible. You will find that it will not change over time. You can rely on the Word of God. You can’t rely on the word of a scientist. He might change his mind tomorrow. Come up with a new theory. God won’t. The word of 100,000 scientists will not save you. The Word of God will. If you have faith.

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  119. CreationCD August 8, 2007 2:21 pm Reply

    Regarding the 2 hour video by Ken Miller, Author of FINDING DARWIN’S GOD. That

    btodd linked to in his August 6th, 2007, 2:29pm post

    [I'm not done watching it yet, I'm also busy following the links on talkorigin about the Big Daddy Chick Tract]

    Here are some things Mr. Miller didn’t mention in his book about one of his major proofs of evolution.

    From:
    http://www.detectingdesign.com/galactosidaseevolution.html

    Kenneth Miller (biologist, Brown University). In his 1999 book, Finding Darwin’s God, challenges one of Michael Behe’s position citing a 1982 research study by professor Barry Hall, an biologist from the University of Rochester.

    Hall deleted a gene (lacZ) in a type of bacteria (E. coli) that makes a lactase enzyme (galactosidase). This lactase enzyme converts a sugar called lactose into the sugars glucose and galactose. E. coli then process glucose and galactose further to extract energy.

    When Hall exposed the mutant bacteria to lactose enriched growth media, that they quickly modified a different gene, which Hall named the “evolved ß-galactosidase gene” (ebg), to produce a pretty good lactase enzyme. A key random mutation to this genetic sequence was able to produce a protein with the lactase function.

    The LacZ gene was about 3,500 base pairs long and codes for a chain of about 1,000 amino acids. Four of these chains must be folded together to form the galactosidase enzyme. The “evolved” beta-galactosidase gene is similar in complexity.

    Observed evolution, right.

    What you weren’t told:

    The active sites of the lac and ebg ß-galactosidase enzymes are essentially the same with both being a part of a family of highly conserved ß-galactosidases – identical at 13 of 15 active-site amino acid residues.

    The two mutations in the ebg ß-galactosidase, that increase its ability to hydrolyze lactose, change the two non-identical residues back to those of the other ß-galactosidases. So, before the evolution of the lactase ability of the ebg gene, its active site was already a near duplicate of other ß-galactosidases

    So this gene is a sort of built-in spare tire.

    If the ebg gene is also deleted the bacteria can never be shown to evolve another beta-galactosidas gene. Only bacteria that have this spare tire can be shown to get back their lactose function.

    The ebg gene and the gene for its repressor are highly conserved in E. Coli bacteria. Meaning that it is almost the same in all E. Coli , not corrupted through random mutations therefore it must have a function for natural selection to select this particular gene over mutations.

    This gene already had an assembled repressor which normally keeps the gene from being processed.

    The repressor required only one mutation to make it sensitive to lactose. So the machinery for regulatory control of this gene expression was already in place. It just required a flip of a switch to start it up.

    The gene coding for the enzyme required two point mutations to make the enzyme produced react with lactose molecules. As pointed out it was already almost a copy of the normal LacZ gene that was deleted.

    A spare tire, already in the trunk with all necessary tools to install it is not an evolutionary event you witnessed when you opened the trunk.

    In the Evolving Bacteria power point I’m working on, I compare it to a computer trying to open an .exl file someone e-mailed me for the first time. Sadly the error message comes up during the Microsoft Excel startup screen that 2 files are missing.
    An evolutionist says, “Wow, your computer is evolving a Microsoft Excel program and it’s only two files away.”
    The creationist says, “No, I think this computer had a Microsoft Excel program written by Microsoft programmers already in it but two files were corrupted or deleted.”

  120. CreationCD August 8, 2007 2:28 pm Reply

    Regarding truth and lies.

    Ken Miller: 20:45
    In the video link from btodd in his August 6th, 2007, 2:29pm

    “Supernatural explanations may be correct.

    Remember, I live in New England a lot of people who looked at the baseball playoffs in 2004 could see the hand of God in the success of the Red Socks. And you know what; I think that might be true. I think God may have had His fill of George Steinbrenner that year and that was it. But that explanation even if correct is not science because it’s not testable. And that’s the point that is made.”

    Now, I know he doesn’t really think they may be correct he’s just trying to separate ID from science. But the separation he wants is one way. He wants to be able to say that there is no qualified scientist, no theory or model, no scientific evidence that goes against evolutionary theory. But he wants to disallow any scientist’s objections, any creationist theory or model and any facts supporting creation or facts contrary to evolution from being brought up.

    This is the same reason that L.T. More said, “The only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational,” and Dr. Scott Todd, “It doesn’t matter if all the evidence supports intelligent design and contradicts naturalistic evolution.”

    However since Dr. Miller started this discussion in his because of his objections to the textbook warning stickers used in Cobb County on his textbooks. I would gladly allow him to place a similar statement in his textbooks in place of the warning stickers. Say, “Supernatural special creation may be true but cannot be discussed as science even if all the evidence supports it.”

    Any takes on this site willing to make that comment.

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

    Dr. Miller also said:

    Bacterial Flagellum and Irreducible Complexity:

    If irreducible complexity is right then the parts of these machines should be useless.

    If evolution is right than we should be able to find similar parts doing other jobs.

    Take away 40 of the 50 parts and what is left behind (the motor spanning the membrane) what is left is the type III secretory system (10 parts) which is a molecular syringe for injecting nasty proteins into our cells. [Eukaryote cells] use by bacteria such as those that cause Bubonic Plague.

    The 10 proteins that make up the type III Secretory System are directly homologous to the 10 proteins in the base of the flagellum.

    He says these 10 parts of the flagellum system by themselves are fully functional as a type 3 secretion system.

    Almost every protein in the bacterial flagellum is strongly homologous to a protein used somewhere else in the cell.

    Here are some excerpts from Sean D. Pittman’s website article:
    http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

    It is strange that the type 3 secretion system is so commonly promoted as the most likely starting point by many evolutionists since the type 3 secretion system is supposed to have evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar evolution

    The type 3 secretion only injects toxins into eukaryote cells which supposedly evolved billions of years after flagellar motility had already evolved!

    The bacterial flagellum is found in both mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while type 3 secretion systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria.

    type 3 secretion system genes are commonly found on large virulence plasmids (which can be easily passed around between different bacteria) … flagellar genes, on the other hand, are usually split into 14 or so operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome.

    … the homologues between the flagellar system and the type 3 secretion system are not that homologous. The F.L.I.N. in type 3 secretion system is only homologous to approximately 80 C-terminal residues of flagellar F.L.I.N. (out of 137aa). There is very little F.L.I.G. similarity and type 3 secretion system F.L.I.F. is missing the C- and N-terminal domains that are involved in forming the MS ring. All that is left of F.L.I.F. is about 90 out of over 550 amino acid residues. What this means is that the type 3 secretion system cannot rotate. Evolving the ability to rotate would involve the addition of a sizable number of specifically sequenced residues.

    [ There seems to be a difference of opinion as to what homologous is, but remember evolutionists like Frank Zindler last year on this site told us that there is practically no difference between a human and chimp either.]

  121. lagomorph2 August 8, 2007 3:32 pm Reply

    A further comment on my previous posting -

    The Editor said, in the same paragraph:

    “(The evolutionists always want to show lots of #6’s; then they make that leap of faith that #5 must then sometimes happen.)”

    This brings up another point. What the Editor describes as a “leap of faith” is no such thing. Rather, it is a logical deduction from the experimental evidence at hand, and this is the way science works and progresses – it makes logical predictions, based on sound rules of inference, in the interpretation of experimental data. It is true that sometimes an error can be made for any one of several reasons, but this is part of the process. By the way, how many times has the faith of a creationist led to a demonstrably false conclusion? Neither faith nor reason, in the hands of a human being, is infallible, but errors of logic can be corrected by further thought and information. Can as much be said for an error of faith?

    Regards,

    Lagomorph

  122. Sade Tennyson August 8, 2007 3:49 pm Reply

    Brother Kent Hovind,

    Good to hear from you & thanks for sharing this prison daily life experince.
    Blessed be the name of our living God for what He is working out for you for all things work out together for good to them that love the Lord.
    Your reward is in heaven. As the Lord permits; they may touch your body BUT your soul is preserved in Him.
    I pray that the Lord in His infinite wisdom will undertake for you & sister Jo in all the legal battles.
    I pray the Lord will keep you focused on him & that all the subtle strategy of the devil to water you down spriritually through this imprisonment Will not prosper in Jesus name.

    Sister Jo, the Lord Jesus is on your side & He’ll see you through. Be calm in thy soul my beloved sister…God is over all.
    Eric & Tanya, Hovind’s & CSE family, remain strong in the Lord Jehovah & be strengthened in your inner man by HIM.
    I pray that the I AM THAT I AM will in His power abundantly grant you the needed victory in moment like this in Jesus name. Amen.

    Sade Tennyson.

  123. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 8, 2007 5:15 pm Reply

    Geno,
    I am not so widely read. I enjoyed a bit of G.K.Chesterton, Joseph Conrad, Tom Wolf, Kurt Vonnegut, George Orwell, Roald Dahl; One author I picked up on was Paul Davies. Like most people I read Stephen Hawking’s ‘a brief history of time’. I particularly like Jeffrey Satinover and how the mind possibly interacts with or by quantum mechanical effects. I liked his working of quantum mechanics; his ‘unknowable cause’ particularly thrilled me.

    Back when the constitution was written what you call science was called natural philosophy [philosophia naturalis]

    Stephen Hawking is honest enough to admit that his cosmology was not without the “admixture of philosophy”. To prefer a centreless finite unbounded universe as a solution to Einstein’s general relativity equations is philosophy: ergo religion.

    Paul Davies is quite happy to write about the cross over between theoretical physics and metaphysics.

    Everyone working with super string theory has been happy to admit that what they are postulating might be totally untestable and qualify as much as a religious paradigm as empirical science.

    Stephen Hawking says that he is not dealing with a or the “first cause” or “prime mover”.

    Jeffrey Satinover is happy to discuss the metaphysical nature of nature itself; and how mind may interact directly with the quantum universe via effects on micro tubules.

    Rupert Sheldrake is happy to discuss empirical reproducible evidences for what might exist as a collective unconsciousness; universal mind.

    “Science should not tolerate any lapse of precision, or neglect any anomaly, but give Nature’s answers to the world humbly and with courage.” Sir Henry Dale

    but I think the quote you like most is:-

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
    – Joseph Stalin

    It so much better fits in with your reading of the Constitution and your definition of science. For you science means macro morphic evolution and spontaneous abiogenesis. There is nothing more to discuss. End of story, full stop, good-bye.

    The framers of the constitution so obviously intended doctors to induce premature labour and to [...EDITED...] through a trocar inserted through the base of the skull in order for the baby to not take a breath and thus sear a doctor or lawyers conscience with the inconvenience of murder. It is so obvious just by reading the constitution. And the supreme court make law. All bow.

    that is what drove warocuya to call it “your constitution”. God bless you bro.

    thankyou for your dialogue on the matter; if only I wasn’t so ignorant.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: One advantage of old movies is that they had enough style to NOT be graphic in depicting horrible things. Many modern movies want to try to show how good their special effects are at depicting blood and pain. PG74, do you think you could communicate some things with a little more decorum and respect for others, noting that persons of all ages are reading this blog. Words have power. And as you note above, ideas have power. Consider how you construct thoughts as to their impact on distant recipients, persons of all ages. Matthew 18:6 "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." P.A. ]

  124. hevnbown August 8, 2007 7:58 pm Reply

    Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ Bro. Kent. I just read your recent update & was sitting here musing…what an encouragement your letters are. And as our Heavenly Father does normally when HE talks to my heart, HE made me realize a similitude between the Apostle Paul and yourself. Paul is such a great inspiration to us all, and, much of his writings are while he was in chains (jailed). Many of us, when trials come upon us immediately say things as “oh God, why me???” or “Lord, what did I do to deserve this???” (etc,.)That is not the response our Father wants to hear. Our response should be “Father, empower me to bring Honor & Glory to your Holy name while in this trial”. I believe even as Paul did, so you too have inspired many of us while yet in chains. With that said….THANK YOU! And know that you are continually in my family & myself prayers. My 7 yr old prays for you every night. Hang in there…as our brother Hal Lindsay says …”Christians…prepare to blast off!” I believe soon we will individually hear our Lord Jesus call us by name and say “…come up hither”. If not on this earth, see you “at the house”.

  125. EndTimes August 8, 2007 8:38 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 8:41pm:

    EndTimes,

    1) I am sorry that you had a bad biology professor in college. That may explain your ignorance of evolutionary theory, although I do not see how it excuses your decision to hold yourself out as as knowledgeable on the subject while making egregiously simple errors about the nature of the science.

    Dear “Learned” Hand,

    My professors were quite excellent and well trained where they taught me at a highly reputable university back east. Not only do you insult me, but you insult my professors!! I hold out credentials which were quite good enough that I was able to obtain another high quality education at another highly reputable university back east for my medical degree. So, you are wrong here my friend as usual which is your habit on this site.

    2) Evolution is, again, not the result of “blind chance.” You may have, at some point in your apparently long-distant college course, have heard the term “natural selection.” If you’ve ever had the benefit of a course in statistics, you may be aware that selection is by definition a non-random process. You may wish to read up on the subject of evolution, in which case I recommend Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.”

    Thank you again for offering to further MY education which was not at all long distant but I will at this time refrain from keeping your suggestion. Unlike you, I have an advanced doctorate degree in the biological sciences and I prefer to do my research from source articles of which I am quite capable of assessing the value of their conclusions. By the way, I had a minor in mathematics which took me much beyond simple statistics as well as a minor in chemistry which is considered one of the “hard” sciences. You have not impugned in any manner my credentials to comment on evolution despite your DESPERITE attempt to malign my character so that you can triumph over my comments in that manner. Yet even if you did completely malign my character, you still have not ONCE given any substantive arguments against the subject matters that have come before you. So, once again, you place insults and false accusations but NO substance whatsoever in your commentary but what does that have to do with the challenges that I have placed before you to answer with intelligence, not locker room insults.

    I would wish to inform you that I was a devoted student of evolution on a graduate level until the age of 36 a few years after I completed my training in Internal Medicine when the truth of the Bible compelled me to humble myself before my Lord and my creator Jesus Christ of Nazareth. One of the most interesting conversations on this subject that I ever had was during my medical training when my sister was also in the process of gaining her Ph.D. in paleo-biology which was again several years before I became a born again Christian. In the course of our conversation, after discussing the failure of essentially all the neo-Darwinian theories, I jokingly commented to my sister that the best theory of evolution by the evidence was creation. We both had a good chuckle over that comment, but today it is no longer a joking matter as millions of people will believe the lie of evolution and wake up in the pits of hell because of it. It is no laughing matter at all. My sister went on to marry another evolutionary scientist who is a quite renowned professor at an excellent back east college and we have enjoyed discussing many aspects of evolutionary research at it’s highest levels. They are pro-evolution still of course much to my sadness for their eternal souls.

    So, once again, thank you so much for the advice on how to further my education on evolution which my sister or my brother in law have never once suggested to me as they understand that I have a very high level understanding of the entire bogus idea of evolution. But thank you anyhow for your care and concern for my education.

    Lastly, please tell me where evolution starts? I will give you a hint. It is random, chance mutations that are then acted on by natural selection. As much as you wish to turn and twist your arguments, you can not get around your theory that its basis is indeed blind chance. You are further forgetting that one of the biggest difficulties for the ToE to overcome is blind, random mutations by chance that in the hugely overwhelmingly documented annals of man shows that deleterious mutations are common and quite devastating. If you wish to experiment with this, then go have children with your sister and then let your children have children with their siblings and see how many generations it will take to eliminate your family from the breeding population.

    Yes indeed, blind, random, chance mutations are well documented my friend and shown in a small and isolated breeding population such as the Ashkenazi Jews to have profound adverse “evolutionary” consequences due to simple population genetics. The difficulty with the ToE and these blind, random, chance and delirious mutations is that they appear to add up quicker than an organism can evolve into something else to escape the cumulative effect on the breeding population of the more prevalent deleterious mutations. In other words, the millions of years of accumulated genetic mutations would have wiped us out long before now. Just ask Jerry’s kids how important accumulated deleterious genetic mutations are. You may wish to learn a little more about recessive “lethal” mutations.

    By the ToE, for a gene to become prominent in a population, much inbreeding must occur with the death of the wild-type population. Otherwise you will diminish the gene in the population if this does not occur. Again, go look at Haldane’s Dilemma to educate yourself on this simple evolutionary fact. The kind of inbreeding that is necessary to preserve a new advantageous gene would also greatly endanger the same organism because of acquired lethal mutations. So, the experiment can easily be done to see how many generations of artificial selection with incessant inbreeding will improve or diminish a given selected breed. Hmmm, I think we have already learned that lesson haven’t we. So, don’t forget about the hidden recessive lethal genes that we all have an estimated 3 per person today. This is one of the great failures of evolution theory to deal with in any adequate manner. If you have an answer to this question, please educate me on how evolution and “natural” selection can overcome this problem. If you wish to insult me instead, don’t bother. If you wish to discuss issues, then go for it.

    Likewise, if all the organisms in a given population are 100% identical, then natural selection has nothing to act upon nor does genetic drift. So, natural selection is simple ONE of many mechanisms for changing the ratio of a given gene in a given population. The Cheetah has very little variation in its genetic makeup so it will likely go extinct before it evolves into a cow or something different if it is subjected to an environmental challenge.

    Further, because YOU propose that natural selection is not random, this does not in any sense alleviate the simple observation that the substrate for all of evolution starts with blind chance and random genetic mutations that are THEN acted on by natural selection and OTHER mechanisms. If this is not true, then please give me just one example of something in evolution that starts without a blind, random, chance mutation. I would really like to see that specific example please.

    You appear to be much more concerned with the speck in your professor’s eye than the beam in your own, however, so I predict that you will continue to misrepresent science. As I’ve said, what I’m learning from commenters such as yourself, CreationCD, and Three Crosses is that the appearance of piety is much more importance than actual wisdom, knowledge, or even basic honesty.

    Your Honour, please read me back the transcript of my testimony about my college professor because I do not remember criticizing him, just simply stating a fact that contradicts “Learned” Hand’s source where he states that Haeckel’s theories have not been taught for over “one hundred years.” My statement is true and the TEXTBOOK that it was stated in is still extant for all to review if anyone wished to waste the time to do that. This professor like many teaches from standard textbooks as a further aid to his lectures. I suspect that the book is still sitting in a closet back in my parent’s house. However, I will forgo such nonsense as looking for it to PROVE to you that my statement is truthful. I stand behind my statement despite your unbelief in its veracity which you have not in the slightest detracted from it by your unfounded and untrue comments. What was the definition of ignorant and liar? I don’t believe you remember the definition either. Nor do I criticize my professor in any manner, yet instead I have a great appreciation for the time and devotion they have given to their subject matter even if now I no longer agree with the underlying ToE. Nope, not a single criticism of these people whatsoever.

    Moreover, your education in biology appears to have frozen decades ago. Assuming that you are both truthful and factually correct regarding the conflation of abiogenesis and evolutionary theory at the time you attended college, these areas of study are no longer part of a single, inseparable theory. Evolutionary theory stands on the study of replicators, not the initial origins of replicators. You may wish to continue your education, rather than remaining mired in what you recall of your decades-old and apaprently dimly-remembered, poorly-understood undergraduate courses.

    Yes, yes, yes, I am an actively licensed physician with annual CME requirements often on evolution related subjects and you state that my biology education is frozen so your statement simply MUST be true!! You continue with insult after insult that is completely unfounded and untrue time and time again. Amazing really to see someone like you persist despite the number of times your words are shown to be utterly false.

    Returning to the subject matter (why must I deal with your insults over and over again before I can comment on your “science”), now you have REDEFINED evolution to only AFTER some “magical” event has given a “replicator” some selective advantage and that is where you start “evolution.” So, let’s forget the slimey goo, let’s forget the mutations, lets just get to sex and replicating!! Wow, what a definition of evolution!! And you call me uneducated!! Yup, a given genetic trait can change in any given breeding population when subjected to a given environmental stress. YIPPEE, I can quit studying for my evolution exams because I now know the entire theory in three words or less. What utter nonsense you state my friend. Wow, I was hoping for a somewhat challenging and thought provoking discussion with you my friend, but with concepts like that, talking with you about this subject due to your unfounded beliefs is laughable. But keep up the insults, it is better than the insult contests I had with my college roommates.

    With kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  126. EndTimes August 8, 2007 8:42 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 8:41pm:

    Maturekid,

    I notice that the only source in your list of “comprehensive resource list on the E vs C topic” is a single website. While convenient, websites are not a “comprehensive resource” when it comes to a topic as broad, deep, and complex as evolutionary biology. You would find more, and more reliable, information in textbooks. Once again, I suggest Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.” The single most common error I see here is an egregious misunderstanding of the most basic elements of the science, such as the nature of natural selection. (I’m still flabbergasted tat Three Crosses believes that individual organisms evolve through conscious thought, and that EndTimes defended this nonsense. There’s simply no excuse for graduating high school with such an atrocious misunderstanding of the tenets of biology, even if you reject them.)

    Your Honour, the transcript of my testimony will reveal that Three Crosses is stating a true thought that evolution does invoke almost “magical” powers to accomplish its great advances in organism developments over much time against all logic and against the laws of nature. Three Crosses simply pointing out clearly that the ability of Natural Selection to select does not prove that it has the power to create. That is all he was trying to accomplish with his criticism of ToE. So, let’s at least get some facts correctly stated by “Learned” Hand in this debate if that will ever be possible. Natural selection again is ONE of MANY proven mechanisms to change ratios of extant genes in a breeding population, yet it has no “POWER” to create any new gene, trait or other advantageous mutation. It simply selects. Another mechanism to change the ratio of a given gene in a breeding population is genetic drift which may occur such as when a river separates a population into two isolated populations. Later, if the river dries up due to global warming, then these two populations may not be able to breed again. Yet they are not different “kinds” despite not being able to interbreed any longer. So, natural selection is just one of MANY “evolutionary” mechanisms that does indeed change the ratio of a given gene in a given population but can never change any organism into another “kind” of organism. Furthermore, it has no power to create new information or a new gene or a new organelle. It simply “selects.”

    “Evolution” starts with spontaneous generation of a nonliving organic goo (this is no longer defended yet it was up until the most recent times completely part of the ToE) from which “simple” organisms “evolved” into a lawyer that can then “think” and insult those that do not believe in blind chance and random accident creating intelligent life.

    However, natural selection “selects” that is all that it can do. It must start with a DNA substrate that is already intact and then due to competition for food and sex or escape from a predator and “choose” for the organism that has some trait that puts it a higher advantage in these pursuits. The source for these “advantageous” traits is mutations in the genetic code from several different sources leading to genetic variations in the population. Then, due to this competitive advantage, this trait is preserved in the breeding population over those that do not have the “advantageous” and newly acquired trait. The ToE states that this is a process that starts with an INDIVIDUAL with a RANDOM mutation leading to a BENEFICIAL trait that is then PRESERVED in the entire breeding population.

    I have pointed you to Haldane’s Dilemma to show you the difficult process statistically it will take for a chimpanzee “like” common ancestor to acquire the number of mutations to change the genes enough in the time allotted to become a man. If you wish to deal in insults and ignore a quite interesting topic of discussion brought to us by a very well respected evolutionary biologist, I will say no more but to state that statistically, in the alleged time allotted for the evolution of man and chimps from a common ancestor, it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. If you wish to address this subject, go ahead. If you wish to insult me more, I really don’t care. My only reason to even respond to you is to place the information out there for all to see and choose for themselves who is responding in a gentlemanly and intelligent manner.

    For example, the often noted “evolution” of multi-resistant TB is often cited for a modern day process and as an excellent example of “evolution at work.” What then if this bug kills all men because it has such a great competitive advantage over man. Let’s state that it wipes us out this year. Tell me, my “Learned” friend, what will the evolution of multi-resistant TB be 100 years after it has killed all men? The answer is actually quite simple and easy to predict. Once the use of multiple drugs against TB stops, it will not evolve into a cockroach, it will simple go back to its wild-type susceptible TB that it started at 50 years ago. So, that is an example of evolution? Give me a break. Darwin’s finches go back to the original population ratio of big beaks vs. small beaks once the drought ends.
    What concepts do you wish to discuss to prove your evolutionary theories? (Genetic drift, founder’s effect, co-evolution, descent with modification, gene flow. etc?) You name it my friend and I would be grateful to learn more about this subject which I avidly study from many sources. The reason I enjoy this site so much is because I do learn more about many different subjects. However, with you, I have not yet learned anything of interest other than the many different varieties of insults you are able to generate. Is that really the legacy you wish to leave recorded on this blog?

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  127. EndTimes August 8, 2007 9:32 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 8:44pm:
    EndTimes said, “Lastly, how can any sane or rational man watch the links by CreationCD with all of the incredible molecular machines of life and believe that blind chance has created these engineering marvels?”

    Your misunderstanding of the science is typical of someone who gets their biology from creationist pamphlets instead of text books and journals. Nothing evolves from “blind chance.” Natural selection, being by definition a selective process, is the *opposite* of “blind chance.” I do not expect this minor revelation to affect your thinking, which appears to be utterly devoted to confirming your preconceptions regardless of the evidence, but I hope that no one who’s still thinking about these issues reads your words and takes them to be an honest or educated representation of biology.

    I answered this above. Random chance is the basic element of evolution for without “variation” from random mutations, there would be no action whatsoever by any of the mechanisms of evolution including natural selection but not limited to natural selection.

    However, you have finally made an excellent point on the tax protestor movement and evangelism issue. You are absolutely correct that supporting such nonsense as in America: Freedom to Fascism and it’s Tax protestor stance is not held up in the end analysis as a biblical thing to do. (I hope that you are not at the same time denying that America is moving into a Fascist style government nevertheless, but that is not the subject of this discussion.) So, yes, when Christians do embark into areas outside of the gospel that are in direct rebellion against the Word of God, then we do loose our credibility. That much that you state is correct and that is why Christians should stick to preaching the gospel and obeying the laws. If people are going to criticize me, Lord let it be for defending you and your Holy Word and that I might also bear the reproach that you carried for us and not for my own errors and sins.

    However, the gospel also includes the creation message, so, defending against false ideas based on illogical principles of “science” does fall within the realm of Christian testimony as Dr. Hovind has done so well over the years.

    In addition, as the Pastor from the West will rightfully concur, standing up for the Constitution is also a biblical duty, although I feel at this point the horse is out of the barn and the cat is out of the bag and we should focus our efforts moreso on spreading the gospel while we still have that preserved freedom. The night is coming when no man can work. I believe that it is too late to return this country to a Constitutional republic that it started as. With laws like the Military Commissions Act that can deprive any person in this country of their Habeas Corpus Rights, then who in this country is safe any longer? And also the end of the Posse Comitatus on the same day does not make me feel any more confident in my government having its best interest in my interests. Likewise, understanding where we are in Bible prophecy should lead us to increased efforts in evangelism in this late age on the verge of the rapture.

    In addition, there are Constitutional issues at hand in making a church organization a tax collector that goes far beyond the original intentions of the Constitutional protections for religeous liberty, but it appears that you are unmoved by this argument. It is still a valid point nevertheless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

    Lastly, I truly feel sorry for people that are not fascinated by the molecular machines that are the basic elements of our living cells and how they could possibly form by chance mutations from a slimy soup. To ponder these entities with the dramatic visual tools we now have brings these issues of design to light simply by viewing the majestic nature of these incredibly complex engineering marvels that are much more intricate than anything that man has even conceived of producing. Yet I am thought to be ignorant simply because of my beliefs according to you. Not ignorant in the least my friend and I might even be able to pray for your soul once my flesh no longer dwells on your repeated insults.

    When, however, I think of where you will spend all eternity, your insults matter little to me and the matter of where your soul will spend all eternity does matter. I would not wish you go there especially if something that I said or stated led you to dismiss the only source of truth, the Holy Bible. So, please forgive any and all of us if in our zeal we have not researched any given topic with rigor and misrepresented any issue, yet without the malice that you keep falsely insinuating. There are indeed underlying constitutional issues on the IRS, the Fed and other entities that underly the tax protestor movement. Nevertheless, even if we did misrepresent many things for whatever reason due to error or ignorance, that does not in any manner release you from the truth of the Holy Scriptures themselves which you will be held in account on every word at the time of your judgement. I truly would hope that you would explore these issues for yourself. His Word is true, and they are words of life, eternal life.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  128. Elethiomel August 9, 2007 12:57 am Reply

    regarding DQ’s post, the editor says “Okay, I went to all three links. Interesting stuff, but still no proof.”

    The editor seems to be unaware that there is no proof in science, regardless of the field; proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

  129. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 9, 2007 3:34 am Reply

    Geno; like so many days when it is my knee that jerks out a first response I sat and thought on your comments a while longer.

    I agree with you that creation science should be taught in Theology Class. In a way that is where all ultimate truth should be dealt out. All “public schooling” is something that actually proceeded out of Sunday School and the top priority was to teach people to read and write so that they could be exposed to the bible themselves and come to an appreciation of ultimate truth first hand; not getting it second hand from fallen man. From that we get just about all our western world institutions. So I am happy for Creation Science to be relegated back to Theology; and for empirical science/ experimental science/ engineering science and that science alone to be taught in ‘science’ class.

    But Darwinianism, Neo Darwinianism, Panspermia, Punctuated Equilibrium, macro morphic mutation driven evolution and abiogenesis are best taught in English class. They would fit in quite well under the banner of creative writing – or maybe better still under science fiction. They could also be dealt with adequately in classical fields such as style and rhetoric.

    Surely, any good English major shall be able to apprehend where experiment finishes and pure imagination takes over. Any one exposed to inductive and deductive reasoning should be able to comprehend what is wide eyed wishful thinking; or extrapolation off the page and into a fairy-tale.

    Otherwise, as a group of subjects, we should put them all in Theology as well; under the banner of comparative religion.

    In so many ways Darwin himself or Lyle could be excused for some of their speculations. So many disciplines were primitive. Darwin could be excused for looking through an early microscope and calling a cell a “simple little thing” – a cell wall with some jelly inside. I’ll say that again for dramatic effect; Darwin, the father of the great theory of evolution summed up a cell as a “simple little thing”.

    Thus, we who now know could rewrite the title of Darwins book changing it from:
    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    to

    “What happened to that simple little thing.”

    I think its quite catchy.

    This generation has lost that much of an excuse for their failure to glorify God.

    Like it or not when people walk away from their test tubes and beakers they are broaching the shoreline of religion; a subject about which God rightly assumes a place of authority.

    thanks again for your educated reponse.

  130. Three Crosses August 9, 2007 10:15 am Reply

    To Everyone: Just an interesting article about some missing steps in man’s alleged evolutionary ladder. From a Leakey.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

  131. anelson August 9, 2007 12:38 pm Reply

    According to the studies I have made with Mel Stamper and Ed Riviera (Calif Attorney), the United States District Court is an Administrative Court for US Employees. The correct court is the District Court of the United States for your appeal and/or your wife’s appeal.

    If you or your wife was found guilty in USDC, you (or she) can ask for a Void Judgement and question In Persona and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. You must also file a Motion to change the venue of the court, then pray the motion will be granted. You must have the U.S. Constitution and the Bible entered in as evidence. I know it sounds crazy, but you have to do it.

    Are you allowed to receive books in the mail? I would like to send you Mel Stamper’s law book for sovereign citizens who find themselves in situations like yours. There is also someone I could have you call on a toll-free number to help you. I know you probably have a lot of help, and the best help cometh from the Lord, Who made heaven and earth. Amen!

    God bless you, Brother Hovind! Job 5:12-13 says: “He disappointeth the devices of the crafty so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.” Psalms 108:12-13 says: “Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man. Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.”

    Amen.

  132. EndTimes August 9, 2007 12:43 pm Reply

    Dear Lagomorph2,

    It is good to hear you commenting again on different issues. I did enjoy going through your list previously before “the moderator” moderated us off the airways. (Just jesting Paul, I again greatly appreciate all of your sincere efforts to make this an upstanding OPEN forum for all views to be expressed cordially and in a gentlemanly manner.)

    As always, I greatly enjoy corresponding with an expert in the area of evolution. I have spent a fair amount of time in that pursuit myself as does both my sister and her husband still. So, just really a quick note to say welcome back.

    If you would be kind enough to consider that, unfortunately, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, evolutionary science does indeed have several ASSUMPTIONS that are at the base of many of its “observations.” I am sure that you are also aware that there are several “reasonable” yet unproven ASSUMPTIONS in all of the dating radiometric dating methods as well . Dr. Hovind does give a good overview of the carbon dating assumptions and the declining magnetic field which if his assertions are true (again they seem quite reasonable to me) then, many of the observed data are actually in error without correcting for those factors.

    This is one of the criticisms of the ToE from a creationist perspective. Yet even Steven J. Gould conceded in his Arkansas testimony that there are ASSUMPTIONS in the ToE that are unproven.

    In such, the truth of evolution really does come down to a metaphysical inferential theory that again cannot be proven or observed due to the extreme alleged time requirements for evolution to happen. Finally, with these ASSUMPTIONS, it becomes hard for me to accept that evolution is actually thus a ”science” when it best fits into an “inferential” metaphysical study with a vast array of data that ultimately cannot come to fruition because of the underlying basis of those ASSUMPTIONS. If you would be kind enough to give your perspective on this, it would certainly be a refreshing change from many recent comments from several participants. Please note that I am not at all disputing the science of molecular biology or any of those other fields, simply the underlying, unifying principles of evolution itself. Here is one list of assumptions by a creationist.

    http://www.wayhome.org/evo4.html

    These next links are all from the same site but the author with a classic training and Ph.D in molecular biology has a very interesting perspective on the evolution/creation discussion.

    http://www.mhrc.net/why.htm

    http://www.mhrc.net/pseudogene3.htm

    http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/biology/index.html

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  133. Nehemiah Jeon August 9, 2007 1:37 pm Reply

    Dear Dr. Hovind.

    Yes, we are still praying for your release. Every night I pray with tears.

    Peace of God be with you for this moment.

    Nehemiah

  134. darling August 9, 2007 2:13 pm Reply

    EDITOR’S NOTE:

    “I would contend that in thousands of years of farming no one has ever seen corn seeds produce anything other than corn… There are no half-cat half-dog creatures running around.”

    Ironically, if that were to happen evolution would be disproved immediately.

    See, that’s the great thing about evolution: it makes hundredths, thousands, dare I say millions of risky predictions. Any one of which, if proven false, would demand that evolutionary theory be dramatically reconsidered, if not abandoned entirely. But that hasn’t happened yet: so far each of those predictions confirms evolution. No other theory can claim that.

    So, if you want to disprove evolution, find me one of those half-cat half-dog creatures. Show me a cow that gave birth to a platypus!

    EndTimes Said this on August 8th, 2007 at 8:42pm:

    I have pointed you to Haldane’s Dilemma… statistically, in the alleged time allotted for the evolution of man and chimps from a common ancestor, it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

    Apparently not.

    “Yet they are not different “kinds” despite not being able to interbreed any longer. So, natural selection is just one of MANY “evolutionary” mechanisms that does indeed change the ratio of a given gene in a given population but can never change any organism into another “kind” of organism.”

    Until someone comes up with a rigorous definition of “kind” then that statement is meaningless. Unless I missed the memo, which is always possible.
    (The straw-man examples, above, don’t count.)

  135. Elethiomel August 9, 2007 2:16 pm Reply

    The editor says: “Good call. This is an important point in the debate. I would contend that in thousands of years of farming no one has ever seen corn seeds produce anything other than corn. ”

    I have to point out that this is amusingly wrong. In reality it is the fact that a number of different species of grasses have hybridised to form polyploid versions of the basal plant groups that has resulted in modern day farming. Corn for example originates in a wild mexican grass called Teosinte, which appears vastly different from today’s corn. Wheat is similar and has formed from wild eincorn, goatcorn and wild emmers. Plants often display these massive diversities, and odd hybridizations that result in some stunning new organisms, for example the Hawaiian silverswords. So in this respect the editor could not be more wrong. The “There are no half-cat half-dog creatures running around.” point the editor makes is quite simply a strawman. I’m sure Endtimes could verify this, since he has studied evolution.

  136. Jason August 9, 2007 3:21 pm Reply

    Hi Kent,

    I’m glad to hear that life is becoming less difficult for you. One day all ‘truth’ will be revealed and I expect at that time God’s words to you will be “Well Done Good & Faithful Servant”.

    Thank you again for all the good work you have done. I am particularly grateful for the greater confidence my children have in the written word, and also their greater confidence with dealing with those who religiously hold to their faith based belief in evolution.

    I also wish to show my appreciation to all those who would stand up for and take seriously, word for word, the bibliography of books known as the Bible. Those who would put their faith into practice and visit (even if only by letter or post to this blog) Gods servant in prison, may it be that God’s words to you will also be “Well Done Good & Faithful Servant”.

    Thank you

    With Love

    Jason x

  137. Jason August 9, 2007 3:23 pm Reply

    Hi EndTimes,

    I’ve noticed your name now highlights the website you have created. I’ve only got as far as the bottom of slide three thus far, so I cannot say too much about it. However saying that it is very interesting, and I am keen continue reading. I’m impressed with your study, and your presentation is an easy read. Well done.

    I often find it difficult to find the time to really put the effort into study, so your site (whether I ultimately agree with your findings or not) will make my time of study more focussed.

    Thanks again,

    Lots of love

    Jason x

  138. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 9, 2007 4:39 pm Reply

    Dear Saints,
    the subject of evolution taken to “reductio ad absurdum”

    If you really want to know how good mutation is go in to the maternity/labour ward of any large hospital. You will first have to ask the bioethics committee to give you permission to conduct a research project gauging the understanding that young “about to be” parents have of the biology that they were taught at high school.

    Go up to mothers about to deliver or fathers waiting anxiously with either one of two statements (randomly selected) and gauge their first response as best fitting either 1. friendly supportive and welcoming
    2. nasty confused aggressive

    First introduce yourself:- I am researching the attitude that young parents have to parenting and how they understand their high school biology. Do you mind giving me just a few minutes of your time and let me record the first response that comes into your mind to just one statement randomly selected from the survey.

    Statement 1: I hope the child you are about to have will possess all of the best physical qualities and characteristics of relatives you love and admire.

    or

    Statement 2: I hope the child you are about to have will possess genetic mutations never before manifest in the human genome.

    Of course the bioethics committee would never let you do it.

    so there is evolution: who wants to put their hand up and be the one to take statement 2 to young mothers about to give birth.

    the choice comes down to Random or God. And interestingly enough Random has never been proven to exist. Some people simply believe that Random exists. I wonder why. What’s really in it for them?

  139. EndTimes August 9, 2007 5:20 pm Reply

    Dear Elothiomel,

    I would correctly point out that Teosinte is ONE of several prevailing theories on the origin of corn. Perhaps it is. Likewise broccoli and cauliflower have “evolved” by artificial selection from a wild mustard plant. Furthermore, wolves, dogs and coyotes all are capable of interbreeding and it appears that they have all “descended” from the common wolf ancestor. Yet for all of this, we are looking at dog “kinds,” broccoli “kinds,” and corn “kinds.” I don’t recall creationists disputing these facts and the great variety in the genetic code of many organisms. The dispute is stating you can turn a corn plant into a watermelon or some other such absurdity. Pigeons have been turned into many diverse subsets with quite distinctive features all derived from the original genome of the wild pigeon type. So, your examples are interesting examples of variations of a common type or “kind” as the Bible states. This is through the loss of genetic information by selected breeding and not increased information. Again, this is not a difficulty for what Paul Abramson was trying to convey.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/homology_05

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  140. btodd August 9, 2007 5:23 pm Reply

    CREATION CD WROTE: “Now, I know he doesn’t really think they may be correct he’s just trying to separate ID from science. But the separation he wants is one way. He wants to be able to say that there is no qualified scientist, no theory or model, no scientific evidence that goes against evolutionary theory. But he wants to disallow any scientist’s objections, any creationist theory or model and any facts supporting creation or facts contrary to evolution from being brought up.” END QUOTE

    CreationCD, he’s simply stating that a theory should be empirically testable to be considered science. Appealing to the supernatural as the end-all answer to each question where there is less than complete knowledge isn’t science. You can start with the presupposition that God is the answer, but you will still have to produce tangible scientific evidence of such. POSITIVE EVIDENCE. Which means, if Intelligent Design or Creationism are valid scientific theories, then there should be positive scientific evidence to support them. Pay close attention to what I’m saying, please, because the current tactic of poking holes in evolution and saying, “See, God did it!” isn’t science. You’re going to have to show that God did it. If you believe in micro-evolution, then did God merely step in to create new species, and then let the evolutionary clock tick again to create all the changes within that species? Or is God reaching his magical hand down to create even those little changes, and thus just ‘making it look like evolution’? These are valid questions, but no one seems to be trying to answer them, because it’s much easier to just try to discredit the real work others have done and claim victory by default.

    For all those who try to make the claim that “evolution is a religion”, here are stark contrasts as to why it is not. If it were, then we wouldn’t bother digging up fossils, studying DNA or the multitude of things science does. We would merely poke holes in your Theology and simply say, “See, Evolution did it!” That wouldn’t be science, either.

    CREATION CD WROTE: This is the same reason that L.T. More said, “The only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational,” and Dr. Scott Todd, “It doesn’t matter if all the evidence supports intelligent design and contradicts naturalistic evolution.” END QUOTE

    I don’t agree with that quote, if that’s what L.T. More said (and nothing else was left out of what he said that might further explain). If all the evidence supported intelligent design, then it would be accepted, by me included. The very problem is that there isn’t any, since the irreducible complexity idea doesn’t hold up (I realize we disagree here), and the rest of the Intelligent Design / Creationism argument revolves around arguments against evolution instead of finding evidence for their own position.

    CREATION CD WROTE: However since Dr. Miller started this discussion in his because of his objections to the textbook warning stickers used in Cobb County on his textbooks. I would gladly allow him to place a similar statement in his textbooks in place of the warning stickers. Say, “Supernatural special creation may be true but cannot be discussed as science even if all the evidence supports it.”

    Any takes on this site willing to make that comment. END QUOTE

    That’s not what Ken Miller said. He didn’t add the disclaimer of ‘even if all the evidence supports it’, he said ‘even if it’s true’, meaning that even if God was behind it, there will still have to be scientific evidence to support it(but by definition, supernatural means that it is beyond our world and thus not testable). You’re using L.T. More’s statement and mixing it in with Ken Miller’s to try to further this stereotype of the evil, God-denying scientist that would disregard scientific evidence for God so they can continue ‘hiding from him mentally’ as some have already put it on this blog. I also wonder how Jesus would respond to those on this blog who have claimed that other Christians aren’t really Christians. Perhaps you should create a checklist as a supplement to the Bible, to affirm who is and who isn’t a Christian, since Jesus obviously considers you to be the REAL Christians.

    On a side note, I think it would be a giant step for mankind if The Bible came with a warning sticker. The Bible should acknowledge that there are many other conflicting faiths, and even non-faiths that disagree with it. You know, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY. ;)

    Btodd

  141. Ganf August 9, 2007 6:54 pm Reply

    I have been following this blog, as well as many other Creation and Evolution sites, for years and am compelled to express my appreciation and respect for Mr. Abramson’s fair-handedness and civility in moderating this blog. He is to be commended. Unlike some other blogs which appear not capable of handling contradictory points of view, CSE’s blog has remained open to many views and resulting controversy.

    Since nearly all the material discussed here is “old” hat (or should I say “young” hat?), I don’t think I’ll join in the fray. 18 years of involvement in the creationist/evolutionist arguments has shown me that rarely is it fruitful. My wish is that each side would spend just a little time learning more. I have found that most creationists have never read a real scientific paper, and many evolutionists have never read the Bible.

    One question… was Eve and Adam’s original sin of disobedience of God’s command avoidable or unavoidable?

  142. Joshua Berndt August 9, 2007 8:13 pm Reply

    Hello,

    To the Editor,

    Will you post Dr. Kent Hovind’s new mailing address. Also, if possible, a link to the prison’s mailing rules page would be very helpful.

    To Everyone else (and the Editor 8^B) ;^),

    Let us pray for the guards at his prison, and for the judge who sentenced him and Jo. We can pray down wrath on all these people, but their Salvation would be much better. I mean, its not like they are treating the Hovinds as bad as Saul of Tarsus treated the Christians. He became Paul.

    Dr. Hovind,

    Here is a pretty neat thought I had awhile back. You know, I am sure, that when a balloon pops, the explosive “POP” is caused by the surrounding atmosphere rushing in and filling the void, when the balloon collapses. Now, when The LORD raptures us out of here, and our bodies disappear, if He allows normal atmospheric conditions to react, there will be a “POP” when each of us disappears! Who knows?!

    I put a document on the desktop of my computer that basically says, “…read this if I disappear…” It explains the Rapture and why my family and I are gone. It gives the gospel and warns of the Antichrist, etc. I wrote this to some of my relatives because in the event of the rapture, I thought they might come checking on us, at our house. Assuming, after some time, they break in or are let in by police, they will discover our disappearances and in time take home some of our earthly belongings. Then when they turn on that computer and see the document they will be presented with the gospel and other things. You know, a tract doing the same thing would be a good thing, I think. There are going to be a lot of found wallets when the raptue hits. A tract in the wallet, or in a pants pocket would be good.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Hovind has been moved a few times, but the address below may be stable for awhile. One can always check for the current address, via the Bureau of Prisons - http://www.bop.gov/ Use their "inmate locator".

    Kent E. Hovind #06452-017
    FCI Edgefield
    P.O. BOX 725
    EDGEFIELD, SC 29824 USA

    Send him a letter or a postcard! A postcard with colorful scenery would be a nice thing to send. I have sent him a few letters with a couple of tracts enclosed in the past. He would share them with others. He can receive books, but not hardcover books. Only paperbacks! No DVDs, or CDs, or anything else hard or sharp, no staples, etc. Do not put "Dr." on his name, or it may get thrown away by the guards, unfortunately. They do not seem to return postal items that do not get delivered to inmates. (So you may want to save a copy before mailing, in case one week later you learn that he has just been moved again.) http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/visiting.jsp

    Expect that anything and everything you write will be read by the guards. Please don't write political stuff, or negative tax-related things, or angry things, etc.

    He cannot write back, for the most part. So even though you may not get a reply, know that your words will strongly encourage him.

    So many men and women in prisons feel abandoned and forgotten. Daily deep depression. Loneliness. Seething rage. Powerlessness. Injustice. ...Speaking of this, ... do you have any distant family members or former co-workers who are incarcerated? Why not take the opportunity to also write to them this week; WWJD? http://www.breakpoint.org http://www.kairosprisonministry.org

    Matthew 25:39 "Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

    Luke 14:12-14 "Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." P.A. ]

    http://www.homestead.com/GodsGospel/GodsGospel.html

  143. lagomorph2 August 9, 2007 8:33 pm Reply

    I am glad to have gotten polite responses from both the Editor/Moderator and EndTimes, and I will try to respond in kind.

    First to the Editor, who said:
    “…I would contend that in thousands of years of farming no one has ever seen corn seeds produce anything other than corn.” My comment – we have samples of the way corn was back thousands of years ago, much nearer to the dawn of agriculture. If you were to compare a modern ear of corn with its wild-type precursor, you probably would not be aware that they were both corn; the differences are huge. Our present varieties of corn have a genome that differs greatly from its ancestors, and it got that way by many incremental variations that were sustained by both natural and artificial selection..
    “There are no half-cat half-dog creatures running around.” My comment – you can search the biological literature to your heart’s content. No evolutionist ever said that we should expect a “half-cat half-dog” creature to exist. We do see creatures that one could roughly describe as “half-sheep half-goat”, and there are good evolutionary reasons for that.
    “Here is what was known back in 1925: http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/Predicmt02.htm” My comment – I really hope that you were joking if you wanted to present this as somehow representing the current state of our genetic knowledge. This piece was written over 80 years ago, and over 25 years before the structure of DNA was worked out. At that time nucleic acids were barely known, and their role in heredity was only guessed at. Besides this, George McCready Price was known as a crank way back then, and his reputation has not improved with time.
    “If we combine this with the scientific evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old – then we can dispense with believed evolution, since it never had time to happen, nor is it possible genetically. The Planet Earth is young: http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/ “ My comment – Actually, the vast preponderance of evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old. Creationist arguments not withstanding, evidence from many sources converges on the accepted date of approximately 4.6 billion years. However, the URL given above is a good synopsis of a typical set of creationist arguments. All of these have been well debunked elsewhere, including some that the most prominent creationist organization includes in “arguments that should not be used.”

    Dr. EndTimes has raised the rather tired subject (so dear to AiG’s heart) of the assumptions that guide the interpretation of experimental data. I will deal with those presented in the URL he provided after making one point clear. In mathematics, axioms are propositions that cannot be proved within the context of the system that they support. As long as they are not mutually contradictory, a mathematician can choose an arbitrary set of assumptions and build a mathematical system using them. Physical reality is no constraint. The physical and biological sciences are constrained by reality – you cannot make an arbitrary set of starting assumptions and take it from there. Every starting assumption in a real-world investigation is a potentially testable proposition, as I hope to show with respect to the list given at the URL supplied.
    “Life arose from non-living matter (Spontaneous Generation).” The author is conflating the notion of spontaneous generation as investigated and disposed of by 19th century scientists such as Pasteur and Redi, who showed that rotting meat does not produce flies and that soiled rags to not produce mice. The modern studies dealing with the topic of abiogenesis (sometimes termed “origin of life’) are much different conceptually and are the subject of a very large body of scientific literature that anyone is free to examine.

    “Spontaneous Generation occurred only once.” Maybe, or maybe not (again, note the mistaken use of the term). If it happened once, there is no a priori reason that it could not happen again, unless the first result chemically devoured its competition.

    “Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are interrelated.” The most obvious evidence of the interrelation is the presence of RNA and DNA as the molecule of heredity. Other nucleotides could be substituted for the five that are actually involved, but they are not. Other completely different systems of genetics could envisioned theoretically, but the fact remains that we see only one system.

    “Multicellular animals evolved from unicellular organisms.” There is a fascinating group of organisms collectively called “slime molds.” They spend the majority of their lives as free-roaming ameboid cells, but periodically come together to form a multicellular organism that can move about and change its form into a reproductive organism. In some ways this is a model system for the study of the development of multicellularity. There is an interesting article on the subject in the August 3rd issue of the journal Science.

    “Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.” I am not sure what “interrelated” means in this context. Both present and extinct phyla often share genetic and anatomical features – the HOX genes and the structures that they control are an excellent example of this.

    “Vertebrate animals evolved from invertebrate animals.” Stratigraphic evidence and ongoing studies of comparative embryology are shedding light on this transition. It is a difficult problem to approach, to be sure, but progress is being made here.

    “Vertebrate animals evolved from fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals, etc.” Biologists do not claim such a linear sequence of evolution – it is a very complex branching relationship that is still the subject of much study.

    What the author of the website has done is to erect a simplistic list of “strawmen” and done a rather poor job of knocking them down. It would take much too much time to address the content of the other URL’s given. Suffice it to say that there is nothing new here – it is standard creationist material, although it is spelled and formatted rather nicely.

    I hope that this post is not considered to be too lengthy – the questions posed can’t be answered in just a few sentence if the answers are to have any substance.

    Thank you both for raising the points that you did.

    Regards,
    Lagomorph

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Please NOT SO LONG in replies! We had the problem previously of the Creation v. Evolution debate taking over the blog. The primary purpose of this blog was/is to relate news about Dr. & Mrs. Hovind, and the CSE ministry. Use a few links for those who want more information, please.

    I must protest your slanderous remarks regarding George McCready Price. He is a great man. I have several of his books. Someday I would like to scan in and put on-line his "Common-Sense Geology" (239 pages) of 1946. I have pulled it off the shelf and placed it in front of me as I type this.

    Creation theory, as a theory based on science (unlike some others), does not have to be revised every couple of years like the evolutionists must do. Their consensus keeps changing, and then the texts must be rewritten. Science is based on observable evidence and real data; evolution is based upon the consensus of its priests, who give the "correct interpretation" of the tea leaves ... or bones and such, in their particular case.

    Priests deal in "correct interpretations" and such. Allow for alternate interpretations, please. Let's do science; separate the evidence from the possible interpretations.

    Discover Magazine states (Sept. 2003; vol. 24, no. 9, pg. 33) “The way human evolutionary studies are going these days, any article on the subject written more than a few months ago probably contains outdated information.”

    The Scientific Mathematician of the universe built-in complexity. Corn is corn, as I previously stated. Now the genome does contain a variety of possible combinations. -Great! Further evidence of wise initial design. Price's discussion from 1925 was/is accurate (though not as complete as current scientific research), correct? Each KIND of life will reproduce within its KIND.

    The first automobiles did not have headlights nor windshield wipers. These were added later. Did their addition, allowing for driving at night and in the rain give them lower or greater complexity? The more built-in complexity, the stronger the evidence points to design for that thing.

    "Natural Selection" is a quality control process. Survival of the fittest, yes. But do not then make that leap of faith to some contrived "arrival of the fittest" belief, through a (quality control) process that instead preserves (not randomly with unlimited changes) the DNA - it is within built-in limits.

    Look at life! It is marvelous! God has designed in tremendous complexity. Look at the huge variations between types of dogs!! Have you become (not you personally, speaking to evolutionists in general) so spiritually dead inside that you cannot call out with admiration to our Maker after looking at a cell through a microscope, or observing budding fruit trees, or a running deer!?

    SHORTER replies, please. Creationists cannot go back to darkness. Your evolutionary pseudo-science and leaps of faith on "arrival of the fittest" will not convince us. We have looked at both sides. Please keep your replies shorter ... or I may have to edit them down for length. sorry. P.A. ]

  144. Learned Hand August 9, 2007 8:51 pm Reply

    The “There are no half-cat half-dog creatures running around.” point the editor makes is quite simply a strawman. I’m sure Endtimes could verify this, since he has studied evolution.

    If he understands the error, he will excuse and justify it. End Times’ goal (as we are all, I think, fully aware) is to discredit evolution in the minds of his readers. If the fastest way to do that is to encourage ignorance and to deceive his readers about evolutionary biology, he will not hesitate. See, for instance, Three Crosses’ bizarre and utterly fallacious belief that individual organisms evolve through an act of conscious willpower. End Times has no criticism for that deceptive and false statement; he offers only encouragement for the falsehood. Explaining the error, however, provokes End Times’ anger and threats of damnation. He apparently prefers the useful falsehood to the less convenient truth – it is important only that appearance of piety be preserved, even if it requires that the pious be miseducated and lied to in order to prevent them from understanding the science they are supposed to reject.

    Let us examine some of End Times’ untrue statements about biology. In support of his false statement that evolution teaches that organisms evolve through “blind chance,” End Times argues, “It is random, chance mutations that are then acted on by natural selection. As much as you wish to turn and twist your arguments, you can not get around your theory that its basis is indeed blind chance.” This reflects a poor understanding of both mathematics and biology – or, if End Times’ statements about his education are true, a simple willingness to pour on the lies rather than admit to any error in his poorly-informed preaching.

    If you flip a coin fifty times and write down the results, the distribution of “heads” is a random result – “blind chance,” to use ET’s idiom. If you then select only the “heads” results and write just those down, the result is not “blind chance.” It is a selected, non-random result. The same is true of natural selection – while mutation is a more-or-less random process, the results of mutation are subjected to selection for the fittest replicators. Evolution is not a “blind chance” process. It relies on selection. Consider, for example, assortative reproduction – as the name implies, it “sorts” organisms, resulting in non-random development. These are extremely basic principles, which any high-school student should be familiar with. End Times can’t acknowledge error, however; aside from being prideful, it would be counterproductive – his goal, again, is not to educate his readers but to inculcate a specific religious doctrine. If falsehoods about evolutionary theory are the easiest path to that goal, ET appears to be quite willing to pour on the misinformation.

    Natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution, of course, despite End Times’ (again) fallacious assertion to the contrary. Consider, for example, the “founder effect,” which can produce striking variations between an isolated population and the mother population despite a lack of mutation in the founding population. Mutations will inevitably arise and be subject to selective, assortative pressure, but they need not precede the geographical isolation that gives rise to the founder effect.

    We continue our tour through End Times’ inaccuracies with his statement, “now you have REDEFINED evolution to only AFTER some “magical” event has given a “replicator” some selective advantage and that is where you start “evolution.” So, let’s forget the slimey goo, let’s forget the mutations, lets just get to sex and replicating!! Wow, what a definition of evolution!! And you call me uneducated!!” We can safely call him uneducated (or else dishonest), as “goo” has no place in the definition of evolution. As DQ stated earlier, to scientists, evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Unless the “goo” has alleles, it’s not part of evolutionary theory. This aspect of evolutionary theory, being inconvenient to creationists, is beyond ET’s vision; he is not interested in, and will not abide, truths about evolutionary biology that are inconvenient to his ideology.

    We can see End Times’ ignorance of, or attempts to suppress knowledge of, biology in his discussion of TB and Darwin’s finches. While these organisms evolve in response to natural selection, (ET despondently admits), they will eventually lose their evolutionary adaptations once the selective pressure eases (he angrily insists). This statement is sort of true, but – as I hope we can all predict by now – the result either hopeless ignorance or a callous attempt to deceive. It is no failure for evolutionary theory that organisms adapt to their environment. That is one of the primary predictions of the theory, and compelling evidence of its accuracy. When a selective pressure eases, we expect the organism that evolved an adaptation to that pressure to either lose the adaptation, or to have the adaptation become the basis for further development (or, sometimes, a “spandrel”). That is because biological adaptations have a “carrying cost.” Sickle-cell anemia, for instance, is the result of an adaptation that suppresses epidemic malaria. In the absence of malarial epidemics (not necessarily the disease itself), we can expect SSA to subside in the human population, because the adaptation has a heavy “carrying cost” – it is deleterious to the health of its double-carriers.

    Not that we expect to see such an evolutionary change in our lifetime; it will take many, many generations. In all probability, science will erase the harmful effects of SSA before nature does. For that, we can thank the researchers and epidemiologists who apply the practical, hard-nosed predictive power of evolutionary biology to understand and predict genetic adaptations in both infectious diseases and human beings. If you’re interested in the evolution of the malarial parasite, or parasites in general, there is an absolutely fantastic book that you must read called “Parasite Rex.” I simply cannot speak too highly of it; it’s a glorious, fantastic description of awe-inspiring biology. Just don’t read it over a meal, if you’re squeamish.

    I suggest to any on-the-fence readers that it is an extremely poor practice to take your information o biology from an anonymous internet commenter, especially one who is unaware of, or dishonest about, the scientific definition of “evolution.” Of course, I am anonymous too. You shouldn’t take your information about biology from me, either – you should read a good book on the subject. As before, I recommend Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is.” Mayr’s goal, as a scientist, is to learn as much as possible about the natural world. Please compare that goal to End Times, CreationCD, and Three Crosses; their goal is to proselytize, even if it requires making egregiously false statements about scientific theory and practice. We can see that in End Times’ actions; when confronted with Three Crosses’ absolutely ridiculous misstatement about evolutionary biology, he is unable or unwilling to admit a fellow creationist’s error. It is far more important to him to advance the ideology than to advance accurate education about science.

    While End Times complains quite a bit about Haldane’s dilemma and other creationist canards, therefore, he is not a trustworthy source of information about these things. As we have seen, he is either poorly informed about, or simply dishonest about, evolutionary biology. If you want to learn about preaching, ask a preacher, not a scientist. If you want to learn about science, ask a scientist, not a preacher. Read a book – you’ll get so, so much more information out of a textbook than a DVD by an itinerant preacher. It’s simply ridiculous to insist that evolution can’t be true, when you don’t even know what evolutionary theory says. You absolutely will not learn what evolutionary theory says from End Times, or Kent Hovind, or Jack Chick. Please, read a book by a scientist before deciding that scientist is part of a giant conspiracy against Jesus.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: SHORTER replies, please. What you are writing is important and pertinent! But, as possible, please use a few LINKS for those who want all the details.

    "Survival of the fittest" Yay!! Why did it survive? Why, because it was the fittest, that's why. Oh, wonderful. Say, how come we know it was the fittest? Well it survived, didn't it? Only the survivors are the fittest ones, of course. Yay!! Which ones are the fittest again? Well lad, those which survive, of course. ...so, we are soon discussing a basic tautology, correct? // That is no kind of evidence for evolution then, is it?

    And again, "natural selection" actually evidences creation, as a quality control process. If we worked at (Gateway, HP, IBM, or) Dell Computers, our quality control department (natural selection) would make sure that only fit Dell Computers get to the end of the assembly line, correct? A bad BIOS - reject. Bad hard drive - reject. Fan stopped - reject. So how many years would this "natural selection" process need to keep running in order for an "Apple Power Mac G5" to roll out, in some contrived "arrival of the fittest" belief system? Honestly. ...And you guys think that we creationists are the ones who believe in miracles! P.A. ]

  145. Learned Hand August 9, 2007 8:59 pm Reply

    Australian, your explanation of the “evidence” for your belief that the “bar” in “bar association” stands for “British Accreditation Registry” is bizarre. It looks like you have plenty of evidence that is doesn’t stand for “British Accreditation Registry,” and none that it does, but you’re still somehow convinced of the point.

    For the record, “bar” in “American (or Nebraska, or whatever) Bar Association” does not stand for “British Accreditation Registry.” It doesn’t stand for anything—it’s not an acronym. “Bar” refers to an actual, physical bar that divided old-style court rooms. (We still have them, but they tend to be low, wooden walls with a swinging gate now.) It’s a symbolic barrier between the public and the court; those admitted to the bar are allowed to pass through that barrier and approach the court. It’s one of those weird little etymological niceties that you get in a medieval profession.

    Australian mentions the “Inns of Court.” These are very old institutions that don’t have any relevance in the United States. We do have at least one Lincoln’s Inn, named after the British Lincoln’s Inn… the one in the United States is Harvard Law School’s frat house, where the students go to play beer pong and watch football. A truly august* institution.

    * I tried to make an Augustus Hand joke here, but I just couldn’t do it. I do have some standards!

  146. Learned Hand August 9, 2007 9:41 pm Reply

    I hope the moderator will forgive my recent forays into biology, as well as my intemperate behavior. I am extremely frustrated by the rampant dishonesty and misinformation I see from some, but not all, creationists. (You can disagree with science without making up stories about what science says, my friends.) I sincerely apologize; I know you try to keep a more civil tone, and I appreciate your efforts. I’ll try to stick to my original reason for commenting on this site, which is to correct some of the egregiously wrong statements made regarding the law. I can’t promise to keep a completely stoic demeanor when it comes to the law, however – once again, folks, these things matter. Innocent people who get led astray by these conspiracy theories wind up relying on them, and getting a horribly quick education in actual law from the prosecution and the courts. Then they have lots of time to study in a federal law library – like, say, 120 months.

    Most of this tax protester/sovereigntist stuff is just outright fantasy. See, for instance, anelson’s statement:

    According to the studies I have made with Mel Stamper and Ed Riviera (Calif Attorney), the United States District Court is an Administrative Court for US Employees. The correct court is the District Court of the United States for your appeal and/or your wife’s appeal.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mr. Hovind was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. The correct court for his appeal is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In the American legal system, the federal circuit courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction over the federal district courts. There is no such distinction between a “District Court of the United States” and a “United States District Court.” District courts are district courts, and you can’t appeal one DCT’s ruling to another DCT. You have to go to an appellate court.

    If you or your wife was found guilty in USDC, you (or she) can ask for a Void Judgement and question In Persona and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. You must also file a Motion to change the venue of the court, then pray the motion will be granted.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is mostly gibberish. Motions to change venue before trial, not afterwards on appeal. There is no “venue” to Mr. Hovind’s appeal, in that sense; “venue” is between different district courts with equivalent jurisdiction. There is only one Eleventh Circuit, and that’s the circuit with appellate jurisdiction over the DCT for the Northern District of Florida. There’s nowhere for it to transfer “venue” to. An appellant may always raise subject-matter jurisdiction (which is the argument that the court below, or the present court, has no jurisdiction over the subject of the case), but that’s a nonsensical argument in Mr. Hovind’s case. The DCTs have jurisdiction over the alleged violation of federal criminal law, and there’s no valid argument that the court didn’t have jurisdiction. If you disagree, please “show me the law” (as tax protesters love to say) supporting your position. “In personam” jurisdiction as you (I think) mean the term here is better known as “personal jurisdiction.” Because this is a criminal case, there’s no leg to stand on there, either.

    You must have the U.S. Constitution and the Bible entered in as evidence. I know it sounds crazy, but you have to do it.

    It doesn’t just sound crazy. It is crazy. For the sake of argument, if you tried to do this, the documents would be ruled inadmissible. That’s not because the Constitution isn’t important, it’s because it’s not evidence. Relevant evidence in a court of law is anything that tends to show that any material fact more or less likely. The Constitution is a legal document; it doesn’t make any fact at issue more or less likely. You can cite to the Constitution as binding legal authority, but it’s not “evidence.” Legal authority is not the same thing as evidence. Nor does the Constitution make any of the charges against Mr. Hovind invalid. Again, if you disagree, please show me the law upon which you are relying, and please be as specific as possible.

    (You can also cite the Bible all you want, but it’s neither evidence nor legal authority. District courts apply the laws of the United States, not sectarian religious doctrine. Mr. Hovind was convicted of specific statutory violations, none of which have anything to do with scripture.)

    Are you allowed to receive books in the mail? I would like to send you Mel Stamper’s law book for sovereign citizens who find themselves in situations like yours. There is also someone I could have you call on a toll-free number to help you.

    Don’t you think the Hovinds have suffered enough from the crooked ministrations of predatory ignorance? They wouldn’t be in the boat they’re in now if they hadn’t put their trust in people selling the same sort of crazy juice you’re peddling here. There’s a reason that this sort of gibberish never, ever, ever, ever prevails at trial, or on appeal – it’s just plain wrong. For Mr. Hovind’s sake, I hope he’s entrusted his appeals to an actual, qualified, honest lawyer, instead of a charlatan.

    For the record, I wish Mr. Hovind the best of luck in his appeal. While I believe that he is guilty, that’s ultimately a determination for the courts to make, and a vigorous and hard-fought appeal is an integral part of our justice system. I believe that he is very, very, very unlikely to succeed in his appeal, and so I also wish him luck in serving the balance of his term. He appears to be adjusting well, which is good for him. He’s fortunate that his career is one that he can pursue in prison. I have little doubt that he’ll accrue the maximum good-time credits allowable under federal law, which I believe would reduce his sentence by 15%. (I’m not positive, to be honest. While I’ve worked with both criminal appeals and collateral attacks in the past, post-conviction time calculations aren’t something I’ve had much experience with.)

    I look forward to reading more accounts of Mr. Hovind’s daily life; this sort of information about incarceration is something most American citizens aren’t exposed to, which makes it difficult for most people to get a grip on America’s abnormally high rate of imprisonment. Incidentally, if you’ve never toured a prison (not just a jail, but a prison), I highly encourage everyone to do so. It’s good for citizens to know what imprisonment is like, as it’s a common but largely invisible part of life for a large segment of our populace.

    (PS – desiree, yes, there is a law requiring you to pay income tax. Look up Title 26 of the United States Code, and start reading from the beginning. Mr. Russo is lying to you in his documentary, which not coincidentally has made him a celebrity among a very disreputable crowd of admirers.)

  147. JR Turner August 9, 2007 10:39 pm Reply

    http://www.article1-taxation.com/fraud.html

    Kent and Jo Hovind are INNOCENT! The FRAUD continues!

  148. Elethiomel August 10, 2007 3:48 am Reply

    To Three Crosses; thanks for reading.

    yes It’s true that we don’t know that a theory is correct; indeed this is always the case. This is sometimes known as “Einstein’s Gulf” – that any theory we have is always tentative and dependent on further evidence. The example you gave is that sort of thing. On one level you could come to the conclusion that they are the same, but further evidence could demonstrate that you are wrong about that, for example the particular absorption properties of the balloon/ball might be observable with more sophisticated equipment, or the use pf parallax (if you stepped a couple of feet to the side, it would look like the close balloon moves more than the more distant ball. Knowledge of how far you have moved and the chang in angle between you and those objects allows you to measure the distance to them). Nevertheless it is rare that theories now are completely wrong. I probably linked to the “relativity of wrong” short story sometime ago so I won’t again unless requested, but generally speaking our understanding iteratively improves. For example, any modifications to general relativity will show us that current GR is wrong, but not as wrong as Newtonian Mechanics, which in turn is not as wrong as older ideas and Geocentrism, for example.

    About the lensing effect. Light is massless and in general we say it travels along a straight line unless it hits a mirror or glass or something like that. This straight line rule is true for what is known as “Euclidean space” – that is, space in which the three inner angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees and parallel lines never meet, however it is not true for non euclidean space. In non-euclidean space, light travels along what is known as a “geodesic” Now the presence of mass bends space and so this bends the path of light. Because of the radial nature of gravity from the centre of mass, this is what generates the lensing effect, so there’s no such thing as astigmatisms and so on (an astigmatism is where the focal length in one axis is different to the focal length in another axis).

    About the earth being a black hole thing, I was just presenting it as a hypothetical to demonstrate the point of mass. A Black hole is essentially an object that has been compressed such that it’s volume and mass falls within the Swarzchild radius (for the earth this is about 9mm across) however for the purposes of the orbit of the moon, the force it experiences is a function of the distance to the centre of mass, which would not change if the earth were swapped with a black hole of the same mass as the earth.

    I don’t know what the point you’re trying to make about vacuum/translucent/transparent media is really, I’m sorry.

  149. btodd August 10, 2007 6:07 am Reply

    I wish there were a way to edit one’s posts.

    Creation CD, in my last post, I spoke of my disagreement with L.T. More’s statement, but you also provided a second quote by Dr. Scott Todd, and that’s the quote I was referring to most. I actually disagree with both quotes, at least as they are written on this page. Just wanted to clarify. I also forgot to put my middle reply of the post in italics, unfortunately.

    Btodd

  150. AIM August 10, 2007 7:53 am Reply

    In the post by “Ekkman” on August 6, 2007, at 6:50pm, a “Youtube” link was given for a talk by Ken Miller. I listened to the talk and was disturbed by Dr. Miller saying Dr. Michael Behe had stated at the Dover trial that his, Behe’s, difinition of science was broad enough to include astrology.

    I checked into this issue and determined that what Dr. Behe said at the trial was not even close to Dr. Miller reported. Anyone interested in reading a different report of what was said at the Dover trial can go to
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology.html

  151. InChristAlone August 10, 2007 8:01 am Reply

    Dear Brother Hovind,

    Thank you for giving us a glimpse of your daily life. We are thankful to hear of your work helping others and being blessed by other believers, as well. SC Girl’s updates about their visits are so encouraging. Your kindness to children has always been wonderful. I remember you kneeling down to talk with our children when they were little. That meant a lot, that as tired as you were, you took time to make them feel important. Thanks, again. :)

    Much love to Jo and your whole family. We are praying for you all.

    In the love of Christ,
    The Johnson Family

  152. btodd August 10, 2007 9:20 am Reply

    AIM reported that Ken Miller was misleading in his contention that Michael Behe had admitted that his definition of theory was so broad as to include Astrology. This is from the trial:

    Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

    Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

    A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody — well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori — a priori ruled out that what we — that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

    Q And just to be clear, why don’t we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

    MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

    BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

    Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that’s what it says there?

    A Yes.

    Q And now the term is used, “The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.”

    That’s the scientific theory of astrology?

    A That’s what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

    Astrology — I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

    And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

    Q I didn’t take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

    A I’m sorry?

    Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

    A It seems like that.

    Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

    A Yes.

    Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

    A I’m sorry, could you repeat that?

    Q Page 132, line 23.

    A Yes.

    Q And I asked you, “Is astrology a theory under that definition?” And you answered, “Is astrology? It could be, yes.” Right?

    A That’s correct.

    Q Not, it used to be, right?

    A Well, that’s what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I’m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

    Q I couldn’t be a mind reader either.

    A I’m sorry?

    Q I couldn’t be a mind reader either, correct?

    A Yes, yes, but I’m sure it would be useful.

    Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

    As Kenneth Miller pointed out, if Creationists and Intelligent Design-ists want to expand the definition of science to include Intelligent Design, they will also open the door to a whole host of fringe ideas that they would most certainly NOT consider science, including Astrology. If Intelligent Design wants to be accepted as science, then it will have to do science. It will have to submit to scientific journals for peer review, and after a lengthy process, if there is sufficient evidence, it will be accepted as a scientific theory. The very fact that Intelligent Design won’t do this, and instead tries to circumvent the system by appealing to the courts instead, speaks VOLUMES about it’s validity, and its own confidence in it’s perceived validity. If you’re convinced this is true, then present it just like every other scientist, don’t use a dishonest approach that assumes you don’t have to do the work everybody else did.

    Hope that helps.

    Btodd

  153. Three Crosses August 10, 2007 10:54 am Reply

    To Elethiomel: Also thanks for reading.
    You said: “I don’t know what the point you’re trying to make about vacuum/translucent/transparent media is really, I’m sorry.”
    I really wasn’t trying to make a point. I was just explaining why I had made an earlier statement you had inquired about. For instance if light was passing in and out of a vacuum the speed would/might be drastically different than what we percieve it to be. Thanks again for the response I have enjoyed our conversation.
    With love three crosses

  154. Sisterfriend August 10, 2007 11:41 am Reply

    Dear Brother Kent,

    I am so glad to hear how you are doing and I am so glad that you are treated well. I am also glad to hear from those that are able to visit you, too.
    We have depended on you to speak to us, and remind us of the things the Potter has said to us, and now we must learn to listen to the Potter, ourselves. We cannot see Him with our physical eyes, so it is an excercise in trust and obedience… but He will not dissapoint us… or you… “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”
    I know that sometimes it is tough to experience the things that life dishes out, but they are all opportunities to learn to obey. They do all have a purpose and the Potter does have a plan, and sees the end even though we do not. We have to trust, no matter what it looks like… We have to trust and obey the One who is above us and can see…
    This will make no sense to anyone who does not know our Potter… but He is not speaking to those that do not have ears to hear.
    “Now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: Now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

    So in everything we give thanks!!!
    You are in our prayers,

    Sisterfriend
    Cheryl Modjeski

  155. Ganf August 10, 2007 12:44 pm Reply

    AIM
    Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 7:53am:

    “[I] was disturbed by Dr. Miller saying Dr. Michael Behe had stated at the Dover trial that his, Behe’s, difinition of science was broad enough to include astrology.

    I checked into this issue and determined that what Dr. Behe said at the trial was not even close to Dr. Miller reported.”

    Ganf says:
    If you want to go to the primary source, go to the trial transcripts. The relevant section begins on page 37 of the direct exam of Dr. Behe:
    http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1018_day11_pm.pdf

  156. Istvan August 10, 2007 12:52 pm Reply

    Dear Friends,

    It’s unbelievable what professed evolutionists would do to prove their point! But I still can’t figure out what their objective is. Besides, they’re not even scientifically correct. They say evolution is a fact, but when I looked at the theory in detail (I had the courage), all I saw was hypotheses, experiments and problems with the theory, “genes first”, “metabolism first”, “bubble theory”, “clay theory”, “deep-hot biosphere model”, “lipid world model”, “polyphosphate model”, “ecopoesis model”, “PAH world hypothesis” and so on. Evolutionist scientists said that beyond the trivial observation that life exists, it’s difficult to prove or falsify abiogenesis.

    So where’s all the hard scientific evidence the adherents of evolution always talk about? All I can find is theories and problems with those theories.

    You can’t even tell how simple organic molecules supposedly formed a protocell, yet you teach children in schools that 13.7 billion years ago there was a big bang, when nothing exploded, and after a whole lot of lucky coincidences or whatever you will chose to call the driving engine of evolution in the future, there you have 6 billion people with organs as complex as the brain, or the immune system, which is an incredibly intelligent fighting machine. How about telling children how exactly all this happened? Without doing that how can you call that science? No wonder you want to plant this crazy idea in the heads of children. They believe everything.

    What you should do is go back to your laboratories and stay there until you have a scientifically sound theory. By the way, what evolutionists do is unsportsmanlike. The Bible was first, Darwin came only later. Evolutionists should be the underdogs trying to push the theory of evolution into the curriculum, not Creationists.

    I’m watching Dr. Hovind’s Creation Seminar Series. It’s absolutely unbelievable that he’s incarcerated. I will continue to pray for his earliest release.

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  157. YoCuzwaasup August 10, 2007 1:09 pm Reply

    Dr. Hovind

    I’ll be doing a 4-H Fair this weekend. I hope to give out over 100 DVD’s on creation, so enemies of the Cross only did you a service. Forgiveness and no jail time may have been better rather than, “Trying to fix your little red wagon”. Maybe your exposure of the N.W.O. got them scared? But what I learned after delving into some of your information is, “We need to forget about these people, cause their still going to do what they’re going to do”. Our Job is to tell the world Jesus forgives and true power and contentment is not found in secret knowledge, but in the openness of the Cross. They lost, they are the makers of there own demise and they don’t even know it.

    Whatever … Everything is just words!!!!!!!!!! But WHO IS SAYING THEM? That is what is important, God or man’s opinion. So simple, but fools say there is NO GOD.

    Keeping the faith

    Anthony

    PS, why get made at me I’m just relaying what I was told. Only one winner in this Game. Are you sure your on the right side? If I lose, what am I loseing? I go backe to nothing or where you say we all go back to.
    But what if YOU LOSE. You lost eternal life, and your reward is HELL. Big difference.

  158. FuManchu August 10, 2007 1:20 pm Reply

    Ganf asked: “One question… was Eve and Adam’s original sin of disobedience of God’s command avoidable or unavoidable?”

    I don’t really have an answer, but it’s a good excuse to lead into a theological question I’ve often wanted to ask. Consider the following:

    1. It is generally claimed that sin came into the world when Adam and Eve ate from the tree in the Garden of Eden.
    2. Sin is characterised as disobedience to God.
    3. It is possible to sin by thought, regardless of whether you act upon it. A good example would be Jesus’ famous statement that to look at a women with lust is to commit adultery.

    All right, here’s the next bit:

    4. When you do something, thought comes before action. You decide to do something, then you do it.
    5. Therefore, Adam and Eve must have DECIDED to eat the forbidden fruit before ACTUALLY eating it.

    With me so far? Here’s the final part:

    6. God had told them not to eat the fruit.
    7. Therefore, they decided to do something in disobedience to God.
    8. Which is, itself, a sin.
    9. But a sin that took place before they had eaten the fruit.
    10. At which point sin wasn’t supposed to exist.

    So doesn’t that make the whole thing a bit meaningless? Any thoughts?

  159. SC Girl August 10, 2007 6:16 pm Reply

    We just got back from our Friday visit with Dr Hovind. Again he was in good spirits and had another visitor today. There was a missionary from Russia whom recently moved to SC. The funny thing was I brought along a helper for the kids whom is from Russia. For those who do not know or believe, that is called a “God thing”…He set that little “coincidence” up to remind us He is in control.

    This week held more bug examinations (why does this place have so many dead bugs on the patio??) and bird watching. Today we saw crows, pigeons, sparrows and egrets flying overhead. The first are not uncommon, but to see four egrets flying in a row was quite beautiful. The weather was dreadfully hot. On my way to the visit I saw one bank sign that read 108 at 5 PM and 101 on the way home a few hours later. It was so hot we were the only people on the patio and that lasted about 20 minutes before we relented and went back into the air conditioning.

    Dr Hovind really was drawn to prayer for his family, himself and others around him. Please keep him in your prayers along with his whole family. Now is the time.

    SC Girl

  160. joshtriangle August 10, 2007 6:35 pm Reply

    FuManchu… Sin by thought? Sin before the “act”?

    Adam and Eve “decided” to eat, and so the sin took place BEFORE they had eaten the fruit?

    First off, the “act” of sinning that Jesus says is Adultery, even though not having physical contact, is LUST… Although many of us in the male side of the house may find it difficult to look at some women without quickly moving into “lust mode”… there is still a window of time where LUST can be avoided.

    I’m sure we can split hairs here, but Jesus, of course, knew exactly what He was talking about. If we look at a person, the initial thought might be one of some attraction. At some point, if we are ALIVE thanks to God, we will KNOW that we are about to get into LUST – the mental undressing and thoughts of physical activity with the subject… BEFORE that happens we have a choice.

    BEFORE Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they had a choice. But until they actually committed the act, there was not sin.

    Reaching for the fruit is NOT equivalent to lusting by sight on another person. Lusting even without physical touch IS the fruit. I’d humbly suggest that that is what Jesus was telling us. Reaching is going for it… but not yet there!

    “Bounce” your eyes from that attraction, and you’ve stopped reaching…

    And then again – we do sin. We do. We have. We will. We can continuously improve… read God’s word about this torturous state (as Paul was inspired to explain)! But we are becoming perfect, if we are following Him, because God is perfect.

    Peace.

  161. Ekkman August 10, 2007 6:57 pm Reply

    Three Crosses
    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 10:15am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    To Everyone: Just an interesting article about some missing steps in man’s alleged evolutionary ladder. From a Leakey.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

    Ekkman said,
    All evolutionists and creationists on this blog should read this link that Three Crosses submitted. I read the article and watched the video on the link too. If evolutionists didn’t think it was true, I would be laughing my head off but I hurt for them so the humor goes to the wayside. It is funny but then again, I know that there are many that believe this nonsense. It is strange how they seem to get the right person who can speak just so intelligently about the stupidity of their belief system that it makes you wonder. It sounded so very good even after reading and seeing the nonsense that surrounds evolution. They have been blinded to the truth, they are not necessarily stupid, just blind. Think about the article and the video. They had these monkey men links as absolutes to many in high schools and some colleges but now they find out they weren’t the off spring of one another but neighbors to each other. Strange! Now they have MORE missing links that will never be found since they were never there to be found. It is surprising that they would even mention this find. I guess they figured that the creationist scientists would find out and report it anyway. Also remember that these monkey men were supposedly millions of years apart. Now they find out that they were neighbors to each other???

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  162. Ekkman August 10, 2007 7:00 pm Reply

    anelson
    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 12:38pm:
    ——————————————————————————–


    God bless you, Brother Hovind! Job 5:12-13 says: “He disappointeth the devices of the crafty so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.” Psalms 108:12-13 says: “Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man. Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.”
    Amen.

    Ekkman said:
    Not that I have much hope in our government any more since I seen what they did to me. I believe that the Lord is still on the throne, he is still in control of world affairs and governments but he is allowing certain things to happen. He is also working through the prayers of his people, according to their faith based on the promises in his word..
    Our only hope is in the Lord and his word. Anelson closed with some good words. But the word also says that the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hands. So we see from this that the judge’s heart is also in his hand and he can turn it but I believe that God moves those hearts by the prayers of his people. He wants us to be a praying army of believers and he can and will turn things around for us to his glory.. He is an unchangeable God.

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  163. Ekkman August 10, 2007 7:02 pm Reply

    Now some young earth thoughts.

    Keep in mind as you are reading some of the reasons for a young earth about the supposed millions of years difference before Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus… NOW they are telling us they were neighbors!???

    Remember they missed the dating by millions of years and they just throw it out like no big deal. Oh well! We live and learn hopefully.

    “Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.”

    1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
    2. Too few supernova remnants.
    3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
    4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
    5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
    6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
    7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
    8. Biological material decays too fast.
    9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
    10. Too much helium in minerals.
    11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
    12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
    13. Agriculture is too recent.
    14. History is too short.

    Go to the web site below, they make a few comments on each of the 14 statements above without getting too wordy. It will not take you long to read it.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  164. Ekkman August 10, 2007 7:17 pm Reply

    AIM
    Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 7:53am:

    In the post by “Ekkman” on August 6, 2007, at 6:50pm, a “Youtube” link was given for a talk by Ken Miller. I listened to the talk and was disturbed by Dr. Miller saying Dr. Michael Behe had stated at the Dover trial that his, Behe’s, difinition of science was broad enough to include astrology.

    I checked into this issue and determined that what Dr. Behe said at the trial was not even close to Dr. Miller reported. Anyone interested in reading a different report of what was said at the Dover trial can go to
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology.html

    Ekkman said:
    Well I did post it, I guess, but I was really posting a post from btodd. And what little I know of Todd, I wouldn’t post anything from him that I would probably agree with. The whole post is below.

    btodd
    Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 2:29pm:

    Since we’re tossing out links regarding evolution vs. creationism, I would like to link you to Ken Miller’s talk regarding Intelligent Design and some of the evidences for evolution. This is a fascinating talk, and should shed a great deal of light on the fact that one doesn’t have to believe in a literal Genesis in order to be a Christian, since Ken is a practicing Roman Catholic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

    If anyone would like, I can link you to a video where Ken shows that among Creationists, there is actually disagreement as to which transitional fossils are apes, and which are humans. As he points out, if Creationists can’t seem to agree on where to draw the line, then it’s patently false to claim that ‘there are no transitional fossils’. There are clearly enough that it’s very difficult to draw the line. Which should also tell you why you’ve ‘never witnessed macroevolution’.
    Btodd

    Todd,
    When you talked about Roman Catholicism, you are not talking about Christians. Roman Catholicism has killed more Christians in the name of Christ, their bread and wine at their Eucharist. They crucify him every weekend at their “churches”. He is a dead Christ most of the time. That is one reason that you see Jesus Christ hanging on a cross in their “churches”, he is still dead to most of them that I have talked to but they call it the sacrifice of the mass.
    Many popes were evolutionists through the years and few were creationists. I don’t know of any who truly got saved and lived to talk about it. In other words, no proof if any did get saved. He is a prayer away from all of us though.
    I love the Roman Catholic people, I share with them as the opportunities arise. I went to their “churches” and witnessed to their people when they came out. I have debated a few “priests”. Most don’t know the word of God from what I have read and those whom I have talked to. That is why they believe water baptism saves, why they believe that you must confess your sins to a so-called priest when the word of God says that all Christians are kings and priests unto God. They are mainly into Mary worship, they pray mainly to her. They believe that Jesus will do anything that she tells him to do. The Catholic priests that I debated, shared with couldn’t even find most of the things we discussed in the bible, I had to tell them where to look and then they couldn’t find the books on the book so I had to do that too, just to talk about it. Then when they saw that their arguments didn’t hold water, they go in to call the cops on me. On the good side of this coin, many Roman Catholics are getting saved and coming out of bondage to the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  165. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 10, 2007 7:26 pm Reply

    What really is “narrow minded”?

    If you look for variations in mood and behaviour across any large enough population against different phases of the moon you will find them.

    Thus astrology is empirical science. And I suggest that astrologers have a basis for their “science”; as compared to people who believe beneficial mutations turned frogs into princes; or any member of any genera into that of any other.

    FuManchu,

    I am confident that no-one is going to crack the predestination/ free-will paradox on this blog, or on any blog in my life time on this earth. I suspect no-one is going to prove the existence of Infinity or Random. I suspect that hyperdimensional space shall remain unproven. I suspect that no-one is going to prove where or what “mind” or “consciousness”, or even what “sleep”, really is. 400 years of enlightenment hasn’t really changed that much. In the year 2007 a belief that schizophrenia involves demonic possession isn’t really much less valid than it was 500 years ago – in some ways it is more certain now.
    80 years ago travelling through a city on horse meant moving at about 15 km an hour; today with turbo charged v6 motors and super highways travelling through a city at peak hour means moving at about 15 km/ hr. Infant mortality has improved in the western world [while hundreds of millions of babies have been slaughtered in the womb] the average adult life expectancy in some places might have increased slightly.
    What many of us have is hot water on tap, and a few more entertainments. We can also have ice in our drinks all year round.
    Apart from that life isn’t so different. Esoteric or superstitious meant 500 years ago much the same that it does now.

    to your question specifically. I suspect that the “action” of the “eating” was to prove to Adam and Eve what had happened to them. God already new. If the brain is a transmitter and the quantum universe is a transmission medium / recorder, then every witness in heaven and earth already knew.

    But somehow ‘action’ had to happen on earth to create the effect. The fall may have happened in the mind but the death curse upon the body might not have had effect until the ‘action’ took place (on earth).

    Here’s another one: If contracts are “understood” what need is there for signatures on paper?

    So was the “eating” witness to Adam and Eve, a confirmation that they “needed”, to convince them that their birth right/ condition really was gone and wasn’t coming back again.

    From just a few visits with them I believe the Hasidic, Lubavitch and Orthodox are much better at questions like this one you’ve posed. Jewish orthodox schools have massive amounts of writing on these sorts of topics, pulling apart every letter of the Hebrew. looking at the gematria, parallels, symbols, types……

    the one question you’ve raised here probably has several hundred orthodox volumes of commentary on it – maybe enough to keep you going for the rest of your life.

    One question that has intrigued me is; Did the trees with which God covered the surface of his brand new earth have growth rings? I really don’t know. And it really doesn’t bother me if they did or didn’t. I am certain they looked magnificent. cheers

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Pre-Flood tree remains do have rings. I understand that it is possible for a post-Flood (as we could see today) to have more than one ring per year, but that it is exceedingly rare in temperate zones. http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/gallery.htm Perhaps if there was a fruit cycle (per the original design) that could cause a time of faster and slower growth, shown by sets of rings. Does anyone know more about this? P.A. ]

  166. trueblue August 10, 2007 8:52 pm Reply

    ‘Looking’ with lust requires an action after a thought.
    You don’t sin when you think of a good choice or a bad choice.
    The first humans thought, could have chosen to please God, decided not to, and acted on their temptation. Now we have what we have. Lots of silly posts on websites.
    Hang in there Bro. Kent! Most of us are not so bold to stand for what we believe, if the risk is too great.

  167. EndTimes August 10, 2007 8:56 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

    If you flip a coin fifty times and write down the results, the distribution of “heads” is a random result – “blind chance,” to use ET’s idiom. If you then select only the “heads” results and write just those down, the result is not “blind chance.”

    (Yup, just ignore that the other event ever occurred in reality and then you can enter into the EVOLUTIONISTS MAGICAL THINKING LABORATORY and become DELUSIONAL like they already are. People that ignore reality have many different names.)

    It is a selected, non-random result.

    Sorry, but God keeps track of all things and He did observe the other results that you have selectively ignored. They still exist. The only way for your logic to exist is to completely ignore all knowledge on probality mathematics. Sorry, but I would rather not engage in magical thinking. Three Crosses is absolutely correct that evolutionists invoke all sorts of magical thinking. Thank you for giving us such a concrete example of magical thinking.

    The same is true of natural selection – while mutation is a more-or-less random process, the results of mutation are subjected to selection for the fittest replicators. Evolution is not a “blind chance” process. It relies on selection.

    Flipping coins is a 50/50 probability. I have seen some quote that “99.9%” of all mutations are either harmful or neutral BECAUSE of their random nature. For the sake of argument, lets use this figure but in fact, I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that prevalent of a beneficial mutation rate at 1/1000 mutations. Nevertheless, if 1/1000 times we see a beneficial mutation, what becomes of the 999/1000 harmful or neutral mutations?

    According to “Learned” Hand’s MAGICAL thinking, they never happened and simply vanished into mid air like the rabbit in the hat. Please go to the pro-evolutionary websites and review their explanations of random chance mutations and how evolution is not random. Their disinformation and propaganda on these sites is not the least bit dangerous to the scientific evidence of creation. This is utter magical thinking at its best. It is actually quite entertaining to watch people call black white and vice versa. If “Learned” Hand’s explanation of chance is true, then please prove your theories on chance in Las Vegas and document it for all of us to behold.

    If the fastest way to do that is to encourage ignorance and to deceive his readers about evolutionary biology, he will not hesitate. See, for instance, Three Crosses’ bizarre and utterly fallacious belief that individual organisms evolve through an act of conscious willpower. End Times has no criticism for that deceptive and false statement; he offers only encouragement for the falsehood.

    Your Honour, I have reviewed the transcript from Three Crosses on the July 20th Knee Mail thread on August 3rd, 2007 at 12:09pm where he stated that EVOLUTIONISTS have magical thinking and thus Learned Hand has once again LIED to the court in stating that Three Crosses believed this:

    “Here are just some “it” relies on “supernatural intervention”(mysterious unexplained processes that do magical things), “conscious thought”(some genes weren’t busy so they felt free to try new things)”

    I concurred stating that Natural Selection has no creative powers, it only selects from random mutations of which evolutionists are simply at a loss to provide the necessary examples of beneficial mutations. Thus, any “powers” of Natural Selection outside of simply “selecting” and not creating are indeed MAGICAL thinking. I have never once disputed that Natural Selection does exist, it simply does not create. Instead, it is the “force” that keeps a breeding population healthy, weeding out the sick and elderly. Thus the MAGICAL thinking of Natural Selection is that there is a steady supply of beneficial mutations leaping out all around us all the time and that they are SO beneficial that all of the other organisms die.

    Sure, tall and handsome men may have an easier time in finding a spouse and have a competitive advantage over short and ugly men, so why are not all men tall and handsome yet? Likewise, intelligent men have a competitive advantage in finding a spouse, so why is the world intelligence apparently declining by many objective measures instead of increasing? Hmmm, at least with these two examples, there are other variables at play other than Natural Selection. How powerful is this Natural Selection to select? It has no power at all unless those without the “Beneficial” Alleles DIE. Hitler and Stalin understood this concept quite well. The fossil record testifies your Honour, that instead of evolving, the vast majority of species over time have not changed; they have instead gone extinct in a state of stasis, exactly in the same phenotype as they were in their earliest forms. Yes, evolution is a religion of death for that is the only way that all of the men in the world could be tall and handsome through SELECTION. Yup, we’ve had a few evolutionary leaders that learned their evolution lessons well and went SELECTING all over the place. Again, go READ Haldane’s Dilemma to understand these issues and why DEATH is the most important part of evolution. By the way, Haldane is an evolutionist, not a creationist.

    Your Honour, I further contend that “Learned” Hand is deliberately slandering my name by misquotes and deceptive false statements (LIES) to further his failed arguments instead of debating the issues in a fair manner. However, since the Lord Jesus has forgiven me of my sins, I will forgive his and pray for his salvation.

    So, yes, the entire “evolution is not by chance” argument is MAGICAL thinking outside of reality and the finest intellectual entertainment on the market. Thank you Learned Hand for so quickly coming up to the plate to prove what Three Crosses stated evolutionary thinking is. I suspect you will not understand that you have just confirmed the comment that you are trying desperately to discredit. If you wish to give us some more good entertainment, then please do offer more “evidence” on this subject.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    Quotations from evolutionists on chance:

    http://www.wku.edu/~daniel.biles/evolution.htm

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  168. EndTimes August 10, 2007 8:59 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

    Natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution, of course, despite End Times’ (again) fallacious assertion to the contrary. Consider, for example, the “founder effect,” which can produce striking variations between an isolated population and the mother population despite a lack of mutation in the founding population. Mutations will inevitably arise and be subject to selective, assortative pressure, but they need not precede the geographical isolation that gives rise to the founder effect.

    Your Honour, Learned Hand again misrepresents my testimony on this issue. He is LYING when he asserts that I have stated that Natural Selection is the ONLY mechanism of evolution. Please go to my statement in the transcript from this thread on August 8th, 2007 at 8:38pm:

    “Likewise, if all the organisms in a given population are 100% identical, then natural selection has nothing to act upon nor does genetic drift. So, natural selection is simple ONE of many mechanisms for changing the ratio of a given gene in a given population.”

    So, your statement above that I have asserted that it is the only mechanism of evolution is an outright fabrication and a boldface LIE. I HAVE NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT. Please get off your high horse Mr. Attorney and stop defaming my character because you cannot answer my challenges to your feeble “science” statements. Your credibility on this blog continues to disintegrate by your willful and malicious comments and outright LIES. Yet, you have also proven over and over the truth of the Bible in your persistent but false judgements against me.

    Romans 2:1 THEREFORE thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

    As far as the Founders effect, I have already had that very long conversation with lagamorph2 several months ago and I will not respond to you on this issue at this time. I am quite familiar with the concept thank you.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  169. EndTimes August 10, 2007 9:03 pm Reply

    Dear Learned Hand,

    Here are some more quotations from Dawkins and Talk Origins on the issue of chance and evolution:

    It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. [Dawkins 1996: 67]

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

    Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren’t relevant to our discussion because they don’t contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. … the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

    Let’s take a look at the good professor’s logic and see if it holds up. Is it a true statement that once the mechanism of a mutation is known, then the actually mutation itself is no longer random? Huhhhhh?

    Nope, simply because I know how a man in a tower kills his random victims with a high powered rifle, does that mean that there was a directed threat to the person killed or was it just “bad luck” and being in the wrong place at the wrong time because he was a RANDOM victim? I suspect that this type of thinking comes from not holding a true understanding that DNA is a language that abstractly represents all the ideas of life that are then put into place by the most fantastic mass production nano-factories known in the universe and this my friend by definition can only come from an intelligent mind. Lederberg has already shown that mutations are not directed, they are random. Thus knowing the many different mechanisms of DNA mutations does not in the least limit the randomness of that mutation in any given DNA segment unless of course you are able to direct that UV radiation to the precise DNA sequence through Spock’s mind control of course. Therefore, we are seeing one of the masters of double speak tell us utter nonsense in the above statement by Dawkins. This is part of the MAGICAL thinking and DELUSION that keeps this theory from the round, circular file.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  170. EndTimes August 10, 2007 9:06 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

    If you flip a coin fifty times and write down the results, the distribution of “heads” is a random result – “blind chance,” to use ET’s idiom. If you then select only the “heads” results and write just those down, the result is not “blind chance.”

    (Yup, just ignore that the other event ever occurred in reality and then you can enter into the EVOLUTIONISTS MAGICAL THINKING LABORATORY and become DELUSIONAL like they already are. People that ignore reality have many different names.)

    It is a selected, non-random result.

    Sorry, but God keeps track of all things and He did observe the other results that you have selectively ignored. They still exist. The only way for your logic to exist is to completely ignore all knowledge on statistical information. Sorry, but I would rather not engage in magical thinking. Three Crosses is absolutely correct that evolutionists invoke all sorts of magical thinking. Thank you for giving us such a concrete example of magical thinking.

    The same is true of natural selection – while mutation is a more-or-less random process, the results of mutation are subjected to selection for the fittest replicators. Evolution is not a “blind chance” process. It relies on selection.

    Flipping coins is a 50/50 probability. I have seen some quote that “99.9%” of all mutations are either harmful or neutral BECAUSE of their random nature. For the sake of argument, lets use this figure but in fact, I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that prevalent of a beneficial mutation rate at 1/1000 mutations. Nevertheless, if 1/1000 times we see a beneficial mutation, what becomes of the 999/1000 harmful or neutral mutations?

    According to “Learned” Hand’s MAGICAL thinking, they never happened and simply vanished into mid air like the rabbit in the hat. Please go to the pro-evolutionary websites and review their explanations of random chance mutations and how evolution is not random. Their disinformation and propaganda on these sites is not the least bit dangerous to the scientific evidence of creation. This is utter magical thinking at its best. It is actually quite entertaining to watch people call black white and vice versa. If “Learned” Hand’s explanation of chance is true, then please prove your theories on chance in Las Vegas and document it for all of us to behold.

    In kindness,

    EndTimes

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  171. EndTimes August 10, 2007 9:07 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

    If the fastest way to do that is to encourage ignorance and to deceive his readers about evolutionary biology, he will not hesitate. See, for instance, Three Crosses’ bizarre and utterly fallacious belief that individual organisms evolve through an act of conscious willpower. End Times has no criticism for that deceptive and false statement; he offers only encouragement for the falsehood.

    Your Honour, I have reviewed the transcript from Three Crosses on the July 20th Knee Mail thread on August 3rd, 2007 at 12:09pm where he stated that EVOLUTIONISTS have magical thinking and thus Learned Hand has once again LIED to the court:

    “Here are just some “it” relies on “supernatural intervention”(mysterious unexplained processes that do magical things), “conscious thought”(some genes weren’t busy so they felt free to try new things)”

    I concurred stating that Natural Selection has no creative powers, it only selects from random mutations of which evolutionists are plain at a loss to provide the necessary examples of beneficial mutations. Thus, any “powers” of Natural Selection outside of simply “selecting” and not creating are indeed MAGICAL thinking. I have never once disputed that Natural Selection does exist, it simply does not create. Instead, it is the “force” that keeps a breeding population healthy, weeding out the sick and elderly. Thus the MAGICAL thinking of Natural Selection is that there is a steady supply of beneficial mutations leaping out all around us all the time and that they are SO beneficial that all of the other organisms die.

    Sure, tall and handsome men may have an easier time in finding a spouse and have a competitive advantage over short and ugly men, so why are not all men tall and handsome yet? Likewise, intelligent men have a competitive advantage in finding a spouse, so why is the world intelligence apparently declining by many objective measures instead of increasing? Hmmm, at least with these two examples, there are other variables at play other than Natural Selection. How powerful is this Natural Selection to select? It has no power at all unless those without the “Beneficial” Alleles DIE. Hitler and Stalin understood this concept quite well. The fossil record testifies your Honour, that instead of evolving, the vast majority of species over time have not changed; they have instead gone extinct in a state of stasis, exactly in the same phenotype as they were in their earliest forms. Yes, evolution is a religion of death for that is the only way that all of the men in the world could be tall and handsome through SELECTION. Yup, we’ve had a few evolutionary leaders that learned their evolution lessons well and went SELECTING all over the place. Again, go READ Haldane’s Dilemma to understand these issues. By the way, Haldane is an evolutionist, not a creationist.

    Your Honour, I further contend that “Learned” Hand is deliberately slandering my name by misquotes and deceptive false statements (LIES) to further his failed arguments instead of debating the issues in a fair manner. However, since the Lord Jesus has forgiven me of my sins, I will forgive his and pray for his salvation.

    So, yes, the entire “evolution is not by chance” argument is MAGICAL thinking outside of reality and the finest intellectual entertainment on the market. Thank you Learned Hand for so quickly coming up to the plate to prove what Three Crosses stated evolutionary thinking is. I suspect you will not understand that you have just confirmed the comment that you are trying desperately to discredit. If you wish to give us some more good entertainment, then please do offer more “evidence” on this subject.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    Quotations from evolutionists on chance:

    http://www.wku.edu/~daniel.biles/evolution.htm

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  172. EndTimes August 10, 2007 9:08 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

    If the fastest way to do that is to encourage ignorance and to deceive his readers about evolutionary biology, he will not hesitate. See, for instance, Three Crosses’ bizarre and utterly fallacious belief that individual organisms evolve through an act of conscious willpower. End Times has no criticism for that deceptive and false statement; he offers only encouragement for the falsehood.

    Your Honour, I have reviewed the transcript from Three Crosses on the July 20th Knee Mail thread on August 3rd, 2007 at 12:09pm where he stated that EVOLUTIONISTS have magical thinking and thus Learned Hand has once again LIED to the court:

    “Here are just some “it” relies on “supernatural intervention”(mysterious unexplained processes that do magical things), “conscious thought”(some genes weren’t busy so they felt free to try new things)”

    I concurred stating that Natural Selection has no creative powers, it only selects from random mutations of which evolutionists are plain at a loss to provide the necessary examples of beneficial mutations. Thus, any “powers” of Natural Selection outside of simply “selecting” and not creating are indeed MAGICAL thinking. I have never once disputed that Natural Selection does exist, it simply does not create. Instead, it is the “force” that keeps a breeding population healthy, weeding out the sick and elderly. Thus the MAGICAL thinking of Natural Selection is that there is a steady supply of beneficial mutations leaping out all around us all the time and that they are SO beneficial that all of the other organisms die.

    In kindness,

    EndTimes

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: I believe I recall "Learned Hand" stating that he or she is an attorney. Why the "Your Honour" title? Even if s/he is a judge, he is not on the bench within this blog, correct? "Order, order in the blog room.", as the gavel is brought down decisively. "Counsel would like to approach the blog, Your Honour." ... P.A. ]

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  173. EndTimes August 10, 2007 9:09 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 9th, 2007 at 8:51pm:

    If the fastest way to do that is to encourage ignorance and to deceive his readers about evolutionary biology, he will not hesitate. See, for instance, Three Crosses’ bizarre and utterly fallacious belief that individual organisms evolve through an act of conscious willpower. End Times has no criticism for that deceptive and false statement; he offers only encouragement for the falsehood.

    Sure, tall and handsome men may have an easier time in finding a spouse and have a competitive advantage over short and ugly men, so why are not all men tall and handsome yet? Likewise, intelligent men have a competitive advantage in finding a spouse, so why is the world intelligence apparently declining by many objective measures instead of increasing? Hmmm, at least with these two examples, there are other variables at play other than Natural Selection. How powerful is this Natural Selection to select? It has no power at all unless those without the “Beneficial” Alleles DIE. Hitler and Stalin understood this concept quite well. The fossil record testifies your Honour, that instead of evolving, the vast majority of species over time have not changed; they have instead gone extinct in a state of stasis, exactly in the same phenotype as they were in their earliest forms. Yes, evolution is a religion of death for that is the only way that all of the men in the world could be tall and handsome through SELECTION. Yup, we’ve had a few evolutionary leaders that learned their evolution lessons well and went SELECTING all over the place. Again, go READ Haldane’s Dilemma to understand these issues. By the way, Haldane is an evolutionist, not a creationist.

    Your Honour, I further contend that “Learned” Hand is deliberately slandering my name by misquotes and deceptive false statements (LIES) to further his failed arguments instead of debating the issues in a fair manner. However, since the Lord Jesus has forgiven me of my sins, I will forgive his and pray for his salvation.

    So, yes, the entire “evolution is not by chance” argument is MAGICAL thinking outside of reality and the finest intellectual entertainment on the market. Thank you Learned Hand for so quickly coming up to the plate to prove what Three Crosses stated evolutionary thinking is. I suspect you will not understand that you have just confirmed the comment that you are trying desperately to discredit. If you wish to give us some more good entertainment, then please do offer more “evidence” on this subject.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    Quotations from evolutionists on chance:

    http://www.wku.edu/~daniel.biles/evolution.htm

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  174. darling August 11, 2007 4:05 pm Reply

    btodd Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 9:20am:

    As Kenneth Miller pointed out, if Creationists and Intelligent Design-ists want to expand the definition of science to include Intelligent Design, they will also open the door to a whole host of fringe ideas that they would most certainly NOT consider science, including Astrology.

    Excellent point. At the same time, some creationists try and restrict the definition of science to exclude evolution. That closes the door to a great number of mainstream ideas that they would most certainly consider science, including the theory of electricity.

    Istvan Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 12:52pm:

    Evolutionist scientists said that beyond the trivial observation that life exists, it’s difficult to prove or falsify abiogenesis.

    Abiogenesis != evolution

  175. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 11, 2007 6:30 pm Reply

    anelson: on August 9th, 2007 at 12:38pm:

    “You must have the U.S. Constitution and the Bible entered in as evidence. I know it sounds crazy ……….”

    anelson, you star; this is one of the sanest things on the whole page! finally a man with sufficient boldness and enterprise to examine the roots of the tree he wants to see cut down.

    for some time I have wondered if the relevant court had plenary jurisdiction to decide on constitutional matters. from what you are saying even if it was the right court to consider constitutional questions, without the constitution being tendered as evidence the document is not considered even to exist. it makes enormous sense – if the court’s principle function is essentially to enforce commercial contracts; as in U.C.C. financial statements. I have read elsewhere that the IRS file all their liens using UCC.

    did ‘United States of America’ effectively become bankrupt to a private corporation some time around 1933? are all courts simply operating to uphold the/ a deed of administration [? chapter 7 arrangement] pursuant to that bankruptcy?

    why is james traficant really in jail? for a man who stood up and spoke some simple truth in the common man plain speak vernacular he seems to have “upset” someone.

    JRTurner, thankyou for your link. Have you considered what anelson wrote. in his post he says that the correct forum is not the U.S.District Court which your recent link talks about but the “District Court of the United States”. I wonder if he really meant “District Court of the united States”?

    Has this all got something to do with “what is territory of United States?”

    anelson, can Kent renounce being an employee of United States? At the moment he is receiving meals, clothing, entertainment, books and a mail service from them. Perhaps they consider him to be working for them still. Its a wonder the IRS aren’t wanting a slice of the apple pie they serve up for dessert. Surely the apples in the pie are untaxed income. Why don’t the IRS have special agents with cutlery at the ready – and perhaps a bib to wipe the cream off their lips.

    please come back to us with more on this. God bless you both in Jesus mighty name. Every knee shall bow……. oh how sweet that will be

  176. Ekkman August 11, 2007 6:43 pm Reply

    CreationCD
    Said this on August 8th, 2007 at 1:32pm:

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

    P.S.
    Thank you Ekkman for your August 6th, 2007, 2:14pm post.
    I did not realize that story was un-scriptural.
    What’s your best answer to the challenge
    “Well, if God created everything then God created evil. … then God is evil,”
    which has been brought up on this blogsite in various forms.

    Ekkman said:
    The way that I see it. God made it plain that he created everything. He created darkness since he is light and he is everywhere present, hence everywhere was light. This shows that he didn’t create light in one sense because he is light. I believe that he let his light shine forth in the darkness that he created since anything no matter how bright is darkness to him since he is light and there would be no light that compares to him. But he did create different forms of light such as on the first day and then on the fourth day Regarding evil, there could be no evil without God creating it. In the sense that he created evil does not imply that he is evil as others assume. I will explain it this way, the word says that our goodness is as filthy rags since nothing good comes from us because we have been born into sin. Even our good acts are sin in the sense they come from the flesh nature which is sinful. That is why a baby is born sinful even though he never sinned. That being true, I need to tie in this comment with it since many cults think that water baptism or something to that effect keeps the baby until the age of accountability or before. They think the water will keep the baby safe in case he dies. That is not true, God keeps the baby safe from being accountable for sin until what God has determined is the age of accountability, whatever that age may be varies determining where people are at in their life such as those who are retarded, slow, whatever. God knows!. It is explained in simple terms in James 4:17 which says, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” God wanted free will agents who chose to follow him, love him and obey him. If there was only one side, the righteous side, then there would be no real love towards God since they would just love him since there was no way to hate him, hence no choice. We are a strange bunch of people. We get down on God for creating evil and yet we justify evil when we do it such as murder, abortion, fornication, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, whatever. It is all right if we do it but we condemn him for making it possible for us to do evil. He doesn’t cause us to do evil, he just made it where we could if we chose any other way than his way. Lucifer before he became Satan was God’s highest creature. He didn’t create anyone higher than Lucifer yet the bible says, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
    Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isa 14:12-15)
    Here we see the angelic beings had a choice to obey God and be blessed or disobey God and be cursed, the same holds true for people. God creating mankind and angels with the ability to disobey would be God creating evil. They could not disobey without having the ability to disobey and when they did, that was wrong, was sin, was evil. If you were just programmed to love then it would not be real love, there has to be a choice not to love for it to be true love. God had to create man with the ability to hate him as well as love him. Since he did that then, he created evil, so to speak.
    As I said earlier, I will share with you the way that I see it. I put it as simply as I could. Hope it helps!

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  177. CreationCD August 11, 2007 10:38 pm Reply

    Why don’t you like my stickers, since they’re based on the seeming consensus of three prominent evolutionists fighting ID and Creationism?

    If …

    “The attack on evolution, the most thoroughly authenticated fact in the whole history of science, is an attack on science itself.”

    … then why do prominent scientist make the following quotes.

    see:
    http://nwcreation.net/quotes.html

    Maybe instead of defining “evolution” and “science” we need to define “is” “cannot be” “true” “false” “fact” “belief”

    Like Ken Millers, “Supernatural Creation may be correct.”

    L.T. More’s, corroborating Huxley’s comments:
    “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion…The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, page 27

    “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism . . . we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” Denyse O’Leary, Design or By Chance? 2004, p. 222, emphasis added).

    Kansas State immunologist Scott Todd adds, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Nature, Sept. 30, 1999, p. 423).

    see:
    http://nwcreation.net/videos/index.html
    click on
    Seattle Creation Conference 2004
    click on
    Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics
    The first part of this video deals with defining science and truth.

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

    Bones of Contention, Marvin Lumenow

    ISBN 0-8010-5677-2
    p. 204-207 [Condensed]

    The Light Breaks Through

    John Eddy (High Altitude Observatory, Boulder) … [at a] symposium entitled “Time in Full Measure,” held at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, on April 13, 1978. … reported in Geotimes by Raphael Kazmann (Department of Civil Engineering, LSU).

    The College of Engineering . . . was interested in methods of establish¬ing the age of geologic formations as part of solving the engineering problems of providing permanent containment of radioactive and other noxious, but non-radioactive, wastes, and in determining the long-term stability of formations underlying dam sites or potential nuclear-fueled steam-electric generating plants.
    John Eddy, opening the morning session, dropped a bombshell. It was an amazingly candid statement regarding our ability to measure the age of the sun. Kazmann reported it in Geotimes: [It's About Time: 4.5 Billion Years, Geotimes, September 1978, 18]

    There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. ‘I suspect,’ he said ‘that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observa¬tional evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.’ Solar physics now looks to paleontology for data on solar chronology, he concluded.
    He [Eddy] concluded that astronomy, as an observational science, can say nothing about chronology as far back as 4.7 x 109 [4.7 billion] years.

    The reason Eddy’s remarks are so striking is that he did what cre¬ationists have urged scientists to do for many years. He made a clear distinction between the facts about the sun (what can actually be ob¬served) and the solar theories. Because this distinction is seldom made, people have the mistaken idea that the sun really is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe really is 15 billion years old.

    The honesty Eddy displayed is rare. First, he stated that there is nothing in the observations of the sun to enable us to discriminate be¬tween the 4.5 billion-year age the evolutionists have given the sun and the date of 4004 B.C….

    Eddy also confessed that there is not much by way of observational evidence in astronomy (he did not limit it to solar observations) to conflict with a very brief age for the earth and the sun. This is an in¬credible statement when one considers the scorn heaped on Recent Creationists for believing that the universe is young. Eddy is, of course, expressing his personal belief in cosmic evolution when he states that he suspects that the sun is 4.5 billion years old.

    Further, Eddy stated that as a solar astronomer he could live with a very recent date. The only thing to be done would be “frantic recalcu¬lation and theoretical readjustment.” Whereas evolutionists have con¬tinually told us that the evidence demands a vast age for the sun, we discover that this is not the case.

    Next was the revelation that solar physics gets its time scale from pa¬leontology, the fossils. Creationists have long declared that the ultimate basis for the long time span was the evolutionist’s interpretation of the fossil record. Evolutionists, on the contrary, have claimed that the long time span was based on a number of independent confirmations. Here is one case (a most unlikely case) where there is a clear connection. Who, of the uninitiated, would have suspected that the age of the sun was based on the evolutionist’s estimate of the age of fossil corals? This is another illustration of the fact that in cosmology the time scale comes from the model, not from independent information.

    … On April 26, 1984, the philosophy department of the University of Colorado, Boulder, spon¬sored a symposium on creationism. The main speaker was Douglas J. Futuyma … [who] had just published his book Science on Trial. …[Which says] on the back cover of the book: “The attack on evolution, the most thoroughly authenticated fact in the whole history of science, is an attack on science itself.”

    … Because John Eddy is well known in Boulder, I used his statement from the Geotimes article in my response. As soon as I concluded, five young men de¬scended on me like buzzards at a road kill. …

    “John Eddy would never say such stupid things as you claim he said!” the first one screamed.

    The second one continued, “You have struck a new low in intellec¬tual dishonesty!”

    A third one confined himself to telling me what he thought about my mother.

    I did not respond. I simply reached into my briefcase and handed them copies of the Geotimes article. As they read, the change in the ex¬pressions on their faces (from rage to deepest confusion) was beyond description. They left mumbling that they were going to see John Eddy about this immediately. …

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

  178. Learned Hand August 11, 2007 11:47 pm Reply

    AIM said, In the post by “Ekkman” on August 6, 2007, at 6:50pm, a “Youtube” link was given for a talk by Ken Miller. I listened to the talk and was disturbed by Dr. Miller saying Dr. Michael Behe had stated at the Dover trial that his, Behe’s, difinition of science was broad enough to include astrology.

    I checked into this issue and determined that what Dr. Behe said at the trial was not even close to Dr. Miller reported. Anyone interested in reading a different report of what was said at the Dover trial can go to
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/500_years_ago_geocentrism_aamp_astrology.html

    Dr. Miller is correct. Behe did admit under oath that he considers astrology to be a “science” in the same sense that intelligent design is a “science.” You say that you “checked into” the issue, but you appear to have started and stopped with the Discovery Institute, which is not a trustworthy institution; their coverage of the Kitzmiller trial is extremely biased and unreliable. If you want to read the actual testimony, instead of the misleading summary put out by the DI, you can do so here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm325

    Ganf already posted another link to the same testimony, but here is the relevant excerpt:

    “Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes.

    Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

    A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.

    Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

    A That is correct.

    Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes, that’s correct.”

  179. Learned Hand August 11, 2007 11:51 pm Reply

    They say evolution is a fact, but when I looked at the theory in detail (I had the courage), all I saw was hypotheses, experiments and problems with the theory, “genes first”, “metabolism first”, “bubble theory”, “clay theory”, “deep-hot biosphere model”, “lipid world model”, “polyphosphate model”, “ecopoesis model”, “PAH world hypothesis” and so on.

    Those aren’t magic words, you know. The concepts underlying evolutionary theory are complex and richly supported by layers of evidence. How did you look at the theory “in detail?” Did you do all of your research on the internet, or did you read books and journal articles? Did you take a biology class?

    So where’s all the hard scientific evidence the adherents of evolution always talk about? All I can find is theories and problems with those theories.

    You can find descriptions of and citations to hard scientific evidence here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    As I’ve said, web sites are a poor place to get a science education. Try Ernst Mayr’s “What Evolution Is,” or another good book by a practicing scientist covering the basics of the field.

    By the way, what evolutionists do is unsportsmanlike. The Bible was first, Darwin came only later. Evolutionists should be the underdogs trying to push the theory of evolution into the curriculum, not Creationists.

    That is exactly how it happened – evolution was an underdog theory that had to struggle to prove itself. It did so over a number of years by accumulating evidence, accurate predictions, and useful explanations for existing data that supported further developments in biology and other scientific fields. Evolution didn’t become the dominant theory overnight – it competed with creationism, and won by virtue of its more useful, more testable, and more accurate results.

  180. Ekkman August 12, 2007 1:03 am Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 7th, 2007 at 8:37am:

    Ekkman Said this on August 6th, 2007 at 7:08pm:

    “I noticed the date at the bottom of the page. It said Apr 2, 2007. Robert Schulz is still heading his group and has filed many papers against the IRS since then.”

    I’m really not sure what your point is.

    You quoted the article saying: “The United States… sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year…”

    I linked to that very indictment, which shows that the government alleges a whole lot more than WTP admit. Why wouldn’t Mr. Schulz still be around?

    Ekkman said:
    Because he has been fighting the IRS a while. I think over 5 years ago, he quit paying income taxes. Many ex-irs agents have quit paying income taxes too, some of them are working with Charles Schulz now. These are “high crime” people, tax evaders, seeking to provide tax shelters, etc.??? These are very, very evil men, deceived and deceiving the public, right? Bob Schulz has filed many counter suits against the United States.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  181. CreationCD August 12, 2007 3:48 am Reply

    In regard to Ken Millers statements about the whale transitional fossils

    in the video link from btodd in his August 6th, 2007, 2:29pm

    Check out :

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

    Origin of the Species, part 2 (Dr. Terry Mortenson)

  182. Ekkman August 12, 2007 12:13 pm Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 11th, 2007 at 4:05pm:

    btodd Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 9:20am:

    As Kenneth Miller pointed out, if Creationists and Intelligent Design-ists want to expand the definition of science to include Intelligent Design, they will also open the door to a whole host of fringe ideas that they would most certainly NOT consider science, including Astrology.

    Excellent point. At the same time, some creationists try and restrict the definition of science to exclude evolution. That closes the door to a great number of mainstream ideas that they would most certainly consider science, including the theory of electricity.

    Istvan Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 12:52pm:

    Evolutionist scientists said that beyond the trivial observation that life exists, it’s difficult to prove or falsify abiogenesis.

    Abiogenesis != evolution

    Ekkman said:

    And since they expanded science to include evolution, they have made monkeys out of a bunch of intelligent people. Maybe Satan convinced people to believe in evolution because they saw it in the “stars”, so to speak. Or maybe in the clouds, they saw a cloud that was in the shape of a man change slowly, very slowly into a monkey or was it the other way around? Only Pastor Darwin knows for sure. He actually saw evolution taking place on that island. He saw birds changing into birds, some with with bigger beaks than others, some more colorful, some dumber, some fat, some skinny, some pretty, some ugly? Samphire saw the same truth in a blog that he posted on here a while back but now it is to do with viruses, I think. I have said many times, “Evolution is man making a monkey out of himself.” It could be “Evolution is a bird making a monkey out of a man.” Maybe, maybe not!
    In closing, as Samphire told me, “Evolutionists can’t prove anything, only falsify”. So based on his words and tying in a thought from above, it is not only difficult, it is impossible. They can’t prove anything. Which I agree with but from a different viewpoint though. You can’t prove something that never happened in the first place, that being macro evolution.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  183. btodd August 12, 2007 1:06 pm Reply

    EKKMAN WROTE: All evolutionists and creationists on this blog should read this link that Three Crosses submitted. I read the article and watched the video on the link too. If evolutionists didn’t think it was true, I would be laughing my head off but I hurt for them so the humor goes to the wayside. It is funny but then again, I know that there are many that believe this nonsense. It is strange how they seem to get the right person who can speak just so intelligently about the stupidity of their belief system that it makes you wonder. It sounded so very good even after reading and seeing the nonsense that surrounds evolution. They have been blinded to the truth, they are not necessarily stupid, just blind. Think about the article and the video. They had these monkey men links as absolutes to many in high schools and some colleges but now they find out they weren’t the off spring of one another but neighbors to each other. Strange! Now they have MORE missing links that will never be found since they were never there to be found. It is surprising that they would even mention this find. I guess they figured that the creationist scientists would find out and report it anyway. Also remember that these monkey men were supposedly millions of years apart. Now they find out that they were neighbors to each other??? END QUOTE

    It’s not at all surprising that they would mention this find, because that’s what science does. As has been mentioned, science is self-correcting, unlike religion. If new data is uncovered that reveals a previous notion to be incorrect, then the theory is revised to reflect what is now known. That is intellectual honesty, and is absolutely necessary if we are going to ever LEARN anything. Religion however, simply says that we have the answer, it’s the same answer we have for every question….God did it. We have always known the answer, we need not look any further, and we certainly need not look for, nor admit, faults in our ‘science’.

    As to the science, this simply confirms what people who understand evolution already know….that the linear chart cartoon you’ve always seen regarding human evolution is not likely to be the case…..as in the evolution of other species, it looks like the branches of a tree, in which some branches die out, while others continue, and split into new ones. That is why the poorly-reasoned argument of “Well, if humans evolved from apes, how come there are still apes?” falls flat. Because we share a common ancestor, and the ‘tree’ split into different branches, one of which eventually led to humans.

    If it were damning to evolution, of all people, Leakey would not have published the findings. So much for the conspiracy of evolution.

    Btodd

  184. Ekkman August 12, 2007 1:10 pm Reply

    CreationCD
    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 3:48am:

    In regard to Ken Millers statements about the whale transitional fossils

    in the video link from btodd in his August 6th, 2007, 2:29pm

    Check out :

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

    Origin of the Species, part 2 (Dr. Terry Mortenson)

    Ekkman said:
    I went to the link that CreationCD supplied above. While I was there, I saw a video on ID movement. As I have said before, the ID movement realizes that there is a Creator but many of them don’t know who the Creator is. They don’t deal with it. This video has some of the answers as to why they don’t.
    ———————————————————————————
    This Week

    The Intelligent Design Movement: How Intelligent Is It? part 3 (Georgia Purdom)

    2007
    ———————————————————————————-

    When you get there, click on the link and watch the video. It is only about 15 minutes long. It has some pretty good thoughts in it. I did not see the other 2 parts though.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  185. Ekkman August 12, 2007 1:38 pm Reply

    A few paragraphs for your reading pleasure.

    “In the famous Miller experiment conducted in 1953, a mixture of amino acids was produced by passing an electric discharge through a mixture of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor. Since that time, various mixtures of amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acid bases have been produced in similar experiments. As these chemicals are the building blocks of living systems, it is argued that such experiments prove beyond doubt that life was produced by chance on the earth. Yet these experiments prove nothing about the origin of life for a variety of reasons.

    “The first, which has already been mentioned, is because such experiments have been designed by intelligent scientists; they have nothing at all to do with chance. Another reason is that in Miller’s experiment, for example, amino acids were produced only because they were removed from the experiment as soon as they were formed. Had they been left in the apparatus, then they would have been destroyed by the same electrical discharge that caused them to be synthesized. Furthermore, the amino acids that are produced in all such experiments are in the right-handed as well as the left-handed forms, whereas living systems contain only left-handed amino acids. Additionally, had oxygen been present in the mixture of gases, the amino acids would not have formed in such experiments. This point is extremely important because the evidence from geology indicates that the earth’s atmosphere has always contained oxygen. Hence, the mixture of gases in such experiments does not mimic the composition of the earth’s atmosphere. This means that the experiments have absolutely nothing at all to do with what may or may not have happened on the so-called prebiotic earth.

    “The second area at which I looked was the fossil record—that is, the remains of life-forms that are trapped in the sedimentary rocks. I soon realized that the fossil record does not show the gradual evolution of one life-form into another as predicted and demanded by evolution. The missing links are called that because they are truly missing—none has ever been found. There are gaps in the fossil record at all the major breaks: fish to amphibian, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, and reptiles to mammals. Furthermore, no fossil remains of any creature linking humans to ape-like ancestors have ever been discovered; half-ape/half-human creatures are figments of the imagination of the artists who draw them for the books in which they appear. I was, and still am, disturbed to read about the famous Piltdown forgery, when a deliberate hoax was perpetrated in order to make part of a modern skull and the jaw bone of an orangutan appear to be the fossilized remains of a half-ape/half-human creature. If the evolutionists have the evidence for the evolution of apes into humans, why fake it?…

    “During this time I began to realize that the idea of evolution was at best a hypothesis and that it had not been proven. I became convinced (and still am convinced) that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to do with evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for the evolution of life on earth.”

    “I also realized that there was no simple explanation for the evolution of the information content which is found in living systems. Contemplating the amount of information in living systems has caused two professors at my own university (Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and Professor Sir Fred Hoyle) to make the famous analogy that if you believe the information content in living systems to be the result of chance, then you believe that a tornado can go through a junkyard and assemble a jumbo jet!”

    I cut out a few paragraphs from an article that I was reading to get you hungry for some more truth. Check it all out at
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/white.asp

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  186. Zarathustra August 12, 2007 3:16 pm Reply

    “http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

    Origin of the Species, part 2 (Dr. Terry Mortenson)”

    That quote of Gould the video starts with is him discussing punctuated equilibrium. Gould addressed this sort of quote mining during his own life, so I’ll let him do the talking:

    “T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

    Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.

    I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

    Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

    - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.”

  187. Zarathustra August 12, 2007 3:32 pm Reply

    Endtimes wrote:

    “Flipping coins is a 50/50 probability. I have seen some quote that “99.9%” of all mutations are either harmful or neutral BECAUSE of their random nature. For the sake of argument, lets use this figure but in fact, I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that prevalent of a beneficial mutation rate at 1/1000 mutations. Nevertheless, if 1/1000 times we see a beneficial mutation, what becomes of the 999/1000 harmful or neutral mutations?

    According to “Learned” Hand’s MAGICAL thinking, they never happened and simply vanished into mid air like the rabbit in the hat.”

    Say the coinflip represents a new organism that has a certain mutation. That mutation is 99.9% likely to be lethal.

    This means that you’re doing a binominal experiment (like flipping a coin is) where the organism is 0.1% likely to survive, and 99.9% likely to die, the chance isn’t 50/50. Organisms that die don’t procreate and don’t get to spread the modified genetic information (mutation), they don’t “simply vanish into mid air”. They just don’t have any offspring, and their genetic information is removed from the gene pool.

  188. Charity August 12, 2007 3:59 pm Reply

    Dear Brother Kent,

    I often think about and pray for your whole family in these trying times. Reading your posts made me think that if I were in prison, how wonderful it would be to have you there teaching and preaching God’s Word. You are reaching folks who would never get this opportunity otherwise. Thinking about this whole mess in that respect, it seems very much like God is still using you in big big ways only to a different crowd of folks. Your family in Christ misses you very much though. I look forward to the day when you get out of there and we can come see you speak again. You are loved by many and our prayers are with you.

    In Christ,
    Charity

    http://freedomtoschool.proboards29.com/index.cgi

  189. Zarathustra August 12, 2007 4:24 pm Reply

    @CreationCD (in response to the video)

    Here’s a good website on whale evolution that goes into more detail and actually has better pictures of aetiocetus: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/

    I have to say the video isn’t very convincing. Especially mentioning “Evolutionists have no idea how the first living cells came into existence by chance” remark at the end doesn’t make sense, evolution isn’t abiogenesis.

    Mentioning Haeckel’s drawings and then showing totally different drawings and claiming they’re somehow the same doesn’t make much sense either, but the drawings are being replaced by pictures anyway, so it won’t be an issue in the future I hope.
    Don’t get me wrong, any biology textbook that presents Haeckel’s drawings as an accurate depiction should be replaced by something better as soon as possible, no one wants to see bad science in schools.

  190. Learned Hand August 12, 2007 5:21 pm Reply

    Your Honour, Learned Hand again misrepresents my testimony on this issue. He is LYING when he asserts that I have stated that Natural Selection is the ONLY mechanism of evolution.

    I did mischaracterize your statement, albeit inadvertently. I apologize. Having corrected my error, frankly I feel rather superior; I note that the creationists here are resolutely opposed to ever acknowledging their various errors. You, especially, caper and crow about the speck in your neighbor’s eye, and worship the beam in your own. Let us examine a short list of your false and misleading statements about evolutionary theory: It is factually inaccurate to say that evolutionary biology teaches that organisms evolve through blind chance. It is factually inaccurate to say that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory. It is ignorant to pretend that ongoing adaptation in the face of changing environmental pressures is not predicted or explained by evolutionary biology. It is sad and pathetic that you supported Three Crosses’ bizarre assertion that biologists teach that individual organisms evolve through conscious willpower. All of these willful untruths, misstatements, and misleading comments… but all you care about is scoring rhetorical points. You don’t spare a second for admitting that you, and others whose comments you specifically laud, have misrepresented the science in question. Doesn’t your religion have anything to say about honesty, or good faith? I recall hearing that Christ taught that you shall know a tree by its fruits. Not so? Your statements here bear the fruit of ignorance. You constantly mislead people not just as to whether modern biology is true, but as to what biologists believe in the first place. Readers who believe your dishonest caricature of science would be taken in by an absolutely false caricature of evolutionary biology.

  191. Learned Hand August 12, 2007 5:28 pm Reply

    Let’s take a look at the good professor’s logic and see if it holds up. Is it a true statement that once the mechanism of a mutation is known, then the actually mutation itself is no longer random? Huhhhhh?

    Your eructation is appropriate; you have misunderstood (or are willfully misrepresenting) the statement here. Dawkins says, quite clearly, that mutations are non-random in a certain sense, “although these senses aren’t relevant to our discussion.” He then gives a simple example – a physical event with an understood physical cause isn’t “random,” because it’s predictable. An icicle falling from a rooftop as the temperature rises is a non-random event, and if you had enough data as to the characteristics of the ice and the temperature, even the time of its falling would be non-random. Dawkins notes, though, that for the purposes of practical biology, mutations are generally random, because they can’t be predicted with the available information. Once again, you are speaking without understanding, pretending to wisdom because it is more important for you to appear to be wise than to actually understand the subject. Is that Christian behavior? More and more, given your conduct, I suspect that it is.

    Similarly, you have utterly misunderstood the example of flipping coins. I honestly thought you would have picked up on this, being so finely educated. As you flip the coins, you write down the “heads” results. These are the preserved results, just as natural selection preserves beneficial adaptations. The “tails” results are discarded, just like fitness-negative adaptations. You are selecting for heads, just as natural selection selects for fitness. The result is a non-random, selected distribution. It does not matter if you are selecting for a very uncommon result, such as a coin standing on its edge; if you flip ten trillion coins over fifty million years, and apply a selective filter, you will accumulate a non-random distribution of the selected-for results. It’s not magic, it’s math. Very simple math, at that.

    If “Learned” Hand’s explanation of chance is true, then please prove your theories on chance in Las Vegas and document it for all of us to behold.

    Find me a game that pays me for a run of flips with a >50% rate of “heads” and allows me to select beneficial results and discard the rest, and I’ll stake every dollar I have on it. That game’s a sure winner. There is no such game, because selection is a non-random result, despite your earlier claim that evolution is a blind-chance process. There is no such game because casinos, unlike creationists, must acknowledge mathematical realities. Please, once again, note that End Times has utterly misunderstood the science (and math) at issue here. Allow me to predict that he will cover himself with more angry accusations and shameful displays of results-oriented thinking rather than admit his error. He can do this – is encouraged to do this, in fact – because his audience, being mostly creationists themselves, will not hold him to any standard of factual accuracy or even to simple honesty. As long as he uses scientific vocabulary, he sounds correct enough to give the approved ideology a semblance of cover, and that is all that is required. He can be completely, one hundred percent wrong on the facts–he doesn’t even have to understand the issues. All that End Times requires of himself, and all that his audience asks, is that he be ideologically correct and never cop to inconvenient facts.

  192. Learned Hand August 12, 2007 5:29 pm Reply

    Your Honour, I have reviewed the transcript from Three Crosses on the July 20th Knee Mail thread on August 3rd, 2007 at 12:09pm where he stated that EVOLUTIONISTS have magical thinking and thus Learned Hand has once again LIED to the court:

    “Here are just some “it” relies on “supernatural intervention”(mysterious unexplained processes that do magical things), “conscious thought”(some genes weren’t busy so they felt free to try new things)”
    I concurred stating that Natural Selection has no creative powers, it only selects from random mutations of which evolutionists are plain at a loss to provide the necessary examples of beneficial mutations.

    This is a subtle distinction, I suppose. Three Crosses did not say that individuals evolve through conscious willpower. Rather, he ascribed that belief to biologists, which is a bald-faced lie – no part of any biological theory proposes that genes think, or that conscious willpower is any part of evolution, or that (as he suggested elsewhere) individual organisms evolve. End Times is correct – he did concur with this egregiously false fantasy. Once again, creationists often mislead each other by creating a false picture of science. By reassuring each other that scientists believe ridiculous things, End Times and Three Crosses excuse each others’ ignorance of science. Neither can admit that their picture of science is false, for doing so would suggest that maybe biology isn’t quite as silly as they keep telling others it is, and maybe it’s wrong (and unethical) to make up falsehoods about the teachings of science. In sum: Three Crosses makes an untrue statement about evolutionary biology. End Times presumably knows that the statement is wrong, but doesn’t care, because it’s useful. So he gleefully agrees, eliding out the most embarrassing parts of TC’s error in order to make the lie more palatable. Is that good Christian behavior?

    More importantly, does it lead to a productive discussion? End Times is perfectly willing to make any ridiculous statement, and then move on, confident in the knowledge that his primary audience doesn’t care whether or not he’s factually correct. He can wallow in ignorance and be called a wise man, because he says that he’s a wise man, and sometimes that’s all that is required. He doesn’t have to understand math, or physics, or biology; like many creationists, he knows that if he preaches about science and claims to be educated, his audience will believe him above every practicing scientist in the world. I can’t compete with that; all I can do is point to the overwhelming weight of evidence. Of every human being who has ever approached the evidence of the origin of species, only a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent are 6-day creationists. In the modern age, well over 99.9% of biologists embrace evolutionary theory; so do geologists, mathematicians, research scientists and corporations who rely on solid factual results, because evolutionary biology delivers those results. Here in the lion’s den, I can’t compete with the fierce roars of creationism. I’ll subside, and try to stick to my own, personal expertise, which is the law. But if you are curious about science, please take this lesson away: You cannot trust men like End Times, Three Crosses, or Kent Hovind to teach you about science. These people have ideological blinders that will not permit them to accurately characterize sciences that reach ideologically inconvenient results. If you’re curious about science, read a book by a scientist. I’ve suggested several on this thread, such as “What Evolution Is” and “Parasite Rex.”

  193. Learned Hand August 12, 2007 5:29 pm Reply

    “You must have the U.S. Constitution and the Bible entered in as evidence. I know it sounds crazy ……….”

    anelson, you star; this is one of the sanest things on the whole page! finally a man with sufficient boldness and enterprise to examine the roots of the tree he wants to see cut down.

    for some time I have wondered if the relevant court had plenary jurisdiction to decide on constitutional matters. from what you are saying even if it was the right court to consider constitutional questions, without the constitution being tendered as evidence the document is not considered even to exist. it makes enormous sense – if the court’s principle function is essentially to enforce commercial contracts; as in U.C.C. financial statements. I have read elsewhere that the IRS file all their liens using UCC.
    I think that when “Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974″ calls you sane, it’s time to make an appointment with the men in white coats. I addressed the merits of anelson’s extremely inaccurate description of the legal posture of Hovind’s appeal above. I’ll only note here that Australian is even more deluded than anelson. You don’t have to tender a legal authority as evidence for it to be “considered even to exist.” Legal authority is not the same thing as evidence. The Constitution is “considered to exist” in every American court, at all times. Nor is the court’s function “essentially to enforce commercial contracts.” That’s one thing that courts do, but they also conduct criminal trials, civil rights cases, employment cases, immigration cases, seizures and forfeitures, etc.

    did ‘United States of America’ effectively become bankrupt to a private corporation some time around 1933?

    No.

    are all courts simply operating to uphold the/ a deed of administration [? chapter 7 arrangement] pursuant to that bankruptcy?

    No.

    in his post he says that the correct forum is not the U.S.District Court which your recent link talks about but the “District Court of the United States”. I wonder if he really meant “District Court of the united States”?

    All names of courts, being proper nouns, should be capitalized. Failure to do so is bad grammar, but has absolutely zero legal effect. None. Nada. Zilch.

    Has this all got something to do with “what is territory of United States?”

    No.

    anelson, can Kent renounce being an employee of United States? At the moment he is receiving meals, clothing, entertainment, books and a mail service from them. Perhaps they consider him to be working for them still.

    He can renounce being Princess of Mars if he likes; both statements would be meaningless. Mr. Hovind was not an employee of the United States.

  194. Learned Hand August 12, 2007 5:33 pm Reply

    Ah – I forgot to add:

    God save Kent Hovind from legal counsel such as this.

  195. ptl August 12, 2007 5:39 pm Reply

    We are praying for you Kent & Jo! And to “BadBob” thank you! We need more teachers like you, and I shall pray for you also to keep up the true meaning of science!

  196. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 12, 2007 7:04 pm Reply

    Ganf, on August 9th, 2007 at 6:54pm:

    ‘…………rarely is it fruitful. My wish is that each side would spend just a little time learning more. I have found that most creationists have never read a real scientific paper, and many evolutionists have never read the Bible.’

    unquote:

    Ganf, I don’t think you should be allowed to get away with this scot free. After 18 years of involvement you should know all about sly imputation. You commend the moderator and then use a great deal of differentiation:–

    “most” creationists haven’t read a scientific paper.

    “many” evolutionists haven’t read the bible.

    the terms are qualitative rather than quantitative, and exhibit an unacceptable level of prejudicial distinction/ differentiation: such as I believe does not meet the measure of an acceptable academic abstract or commentary.
    what standard of bible are you recommending: the new world translation, the Joseph Smith translation, the masoretic text, the peshitta.

    It is truly ironic but for sheer numerical value one of the most widely published scientific papers in the history of the world is the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper. And without an intimate understanding of Hebrew and group theory who can read it?

    did you?

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    Here are two references regarding, "Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis" by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg, as published in "Statistical Science" in 1994: http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/BibleCode.html -OR- http://www.torahcodes.co.il/ (...See the "attempts to invalidate" section discussing skeptics holding anti-Bible biases. ) P.A. ]

  197. Ekkman August 13, 2007 12:05 am Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 11th, 2007 at 4:05pm:

    btodd Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 9:20am:

    As Kenneth Miller pointed out, if Creationists and Intelligent Design-ists want to expand the definition of science to include Intelligent Design, they will also open the door to a whole host of fringe ideas that they would most certainly NOT consider science, including Astrology.

    Excellent point. At the same time, some creationists try and restrict the definition of science to exclude evolution. That closes the door to a great number of mainstream ideas that they would most certainly consider science, including the theory of electricity.

    Istvan Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 12:52pm:

    Evolutionist scientists said that beyond the trivial observation that life exists, it’s difficult to prove or falsify abiogenesis.

    Abiogenesis != evolution

    Ekkman said:
    Here is some food for thought. Just something to help us think more, we are not use to it.

    Well, astrology is the thing now.

    “…Alan Leo, the outstanding British astrologer of 20th century, defined astrology as “the science which defines the action of celestial bodies upon human character, and its expression in the physical world”.

    “Reinhold Ebertin, well-known German astrologer of 20th century, wrote: “the word ‘astrology’ designates the sort of knowledge which has arisen more than ten thousand years ago; its object is the possible influence of stars to the Earth, natural phenomena, political events and, first of all, to condition, character and destiny of the individual”.

    “The most ingenious definition was offered by Robert Hand, the contemporary American astrologer and philosopher: “Astrology is a science studying the characteristics of the given point in space / time through its correlating with other points of same continuum, and using symbolical language according to cosmic structures”.

    “The word “science” in A.Leo and R.Hand definitions provokes some suspicions because astrology was considered as a scientific discipline only in the Middle Ages, but scientific society separated astrology from science in XVIII-XX centuries. Obviously, “knowledge”, the neutral characteristic of astrology offered by Ebertin, is more adequate. Leo’s definition isn’t exact because it restricts the object of astrology to “influence of celestial bodies on character of the man and on his manifestations”. It’s known that some branches of astrology deal with phenomena that have no connection to humans at all (for example, meteorological astrology).

    “On the other hand, we can’t agree with Ebertin as well. He considered the object of astrological knowledge as “the possible influence of stars on the Earth”, but astrologers take into account stars less then bodies of the Solar System.

    “Hand’s sentence “astrology is engaged in study of the characteristics of a point” seems to be quite doubtful. If we regard astrology as a discipline that uses “symbolical language connected to space structures”, the sense of “astrology” is too large. This definition can be suitable also to some other types of knowledge:…

    Taken from:
    http://astrologic.ru/english/astrology.htm

    If evolution is science then I don’t see why astrology couldn’t be science too.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  198. Elethiomel August 13, 2007 1:46 am Reply

    End Times’ argument about the dawkins quotes (the second of which he butchers by missing the whole section about natural selection) and the following analogy and nonsense about spock that he puts forth is really rather incoherent.Dawkins’ point is that people often accuse evolution of being a random theory or a chance theory, and the first quote is the point that it is completely obvious that if evolution were to rely on chance and chance alone, it would not work. the mutations occur by chance, they create the variation that we see, and then some of that variation is proportionally magnified in subsequent generations by differential reproductive success (natural selection).

  199. darling August 13, 2007 6:30 am Reply

    Ekkman Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 6:57pm:

    “They had these monkey men links as absolutes to many in high schools and some colleges but now they find out they weren’t the off spring of one another but neighbors to each other.”

    Untrue.
    I am descended from my grandfather, yet my grandfather is still alive.
    Same principle, but on a bigger scale.

    Which seems like a good enough time to see if images work here:

    “Remember they missed the dating by millions of years and they just throw it out like no big deal.”

    It is no big deal. Science is self-correcting. Yay science.

    EndTimes Said this on August 10th, 2007 at 9:06pm:

    “Please go to the pro-evolutionary websites and review their explanations of random chance mutations and how evolution is not random.”

    “Evolution is the nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators.”

    Works for me.

    Ekkman Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 1:03am:

    “Because he has been fighting the IRS a while. I think over 5 years ago, he quit paying income taxes.”

    Still not sure how that’s relevant to my point that your original post is, well, untruthful.

  200. darling August 13, 2007 8:33 am Reply

    Ekkman Said this on August 12th, 2007

    “In closing, as Samphire told me, “Evolutionists can’t prove anything, only falsify”. So based on his words and tying in a thought from above, it is not only difficult, it is impossible.”

    True enough – because the same is true for science as a whole.
    It’s also impossible to prove the Earth goes around the Sun.

    It’s a subtle point, but I’m sure you can grasp it.

    “If evolution is science then I don’t see why astrology couldn’t be science too.”

    Evolution has predictive power. Astrology, not so much.

  201. Three Crosses August 13, 2007 10:10 am Reply

    btodd said: “If it were damning to evolution, of all people, Leakey would not have published the findings. So much for the conspiracy of evolution.”

    I think you made your point! Are you assuming the religion of evolution means as much to everybody as it does to you? Evolution may not be a religion to some people. They might believe, it only means “change” and start using it in everyday language examples: to “evolve” a flat tire or to “evolve” your socks so your feet don’t stink. I guess, maybe you would say it’s an “EVOLUTIONARY STEPSTOOL”!

    The Mediator/Editor said this “[EDITOR’S NOTE: I believe I recall “Learned Hand” stating that he or she is an attorney. Why the “Your Honour” title? Even if s/he is a judge, he is not on the bench within this blog, correct? “Order, order in the blog room.”, as the gavel is brought down decisively. “Counsel would like to approach the blog, Your Honour.” … P.A. ]”

    It is very disturbing but “court” is anywhere the judge is, whether he/she’s working or not. Judges are not subject to the law, they are the law! They are given the power to lock you up for just offending them. They can lock people up for years without just cause and even if you prove they were wrong they don’t have to worry about paying the price on this Earth. They are even given the power to ignore the law.

    To Learned Hand: Why do you lie about me? Why do you lie about evolution? Why do you lie about yourself? Do you think, people will be better off to believe your lies over the truth? Are you a lawyer or a “high school kid” trying to lend himself/herself some credibility? Do you realize that you confront the truth with insults? What do you have against the truth? What do you have against Christians? If you are a lawyer, are you scared of people you don’t deceive? Why don’t you study evolution? Your religion is falling apart around you, why don’t you dessert the sinking ship? How much do you have invested in your religion? Why do you associate your religion with theories that haven’t been dis-proven? Why are you scared of the truth? Is it because Jesus said “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
    Why do you try and deceive the people, who might read your blind rhetoric? What is your purpose? Do you only attempt to deceive? In closing please show the evidence for your religion of evolution? Show us some piece of evidence that doesn’t point towards a creator. Show us why things would randomly get better without a plan.

    God bless america! God save us all!

    P.S. the A in America isn’t capitalized because according to the “truth” and the “law” it is one nation under God!

    three crosses

  202. Timothy Fellows August 13, 2007 12:14 pm Reply

    My name is Timothy Fellows, and I’m on the list to visit Dr. Hovind (many are called, but few are chosen). My family and I live nearby, and we intend to visit him frequently. I spent a couple hours with him on Saturday, August 11, and we had a great visit. He invited my children to come next time — Jemima Grace is six and Timothy Dwight (III) is four. Both continue to call the church where they heard Dr. Hovind speak on Creationism, “The Animal church” every time we drive by it. This is my first time on a “blog”, so I hope I do this right. I can’t imagine people read all these pages. Dr. Hovind may give me some updates we may end up putting on our website, TrueReligionWorks.com in the near future.
    John Bunyan had a license to preach on the other side of his cell bars — all he had to do was to accept a license from the government to preach the Gospel, and they would let him out. All the other preachers of his day had bowed the knee and ridiculed and mocked Bunyan, but they are all forgotten, and Bunyan lives on as a famous and very influential author (Pilgrim’s Progress) and preacher. I told Dr. Hovind that he can thank God that the prison conditions aren’t like they were throughout much of history. Bunyan’s cell mate had moss growing on his eyebrows and many suffered great physical abuses. Dr. Hovind does have to put up with a lot of profanity, which is a constant spiritual abuse, but the facilities are nicer for him than most Christians in history have had to endure. Most churches today are basically government opperations, allowed to opperate according to the “rules” of the government. Most preachers today not only have licenses to preach (Why John Bunyan went to jail for ten years)but they conduct marriages under the authority of the state, instead of traditional covenant marriages. We are increasingly living in not just a socialist, but a communist society where the government owns everything, and one must get permission to live, work, travel and freely conduct public affairs of business. Dr. Hovind is being persecuted in the Unites States of America and is a litmus test for the Christians out there — Watch out, They’re coming for you next; unless, of course you conform to a state church system, fully approved and answereable to the government. Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? We ought to obey God rather than man. Please check our website, TrueReligionWorks.com

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  203. GaryMurray August 13, 2007 1:09 pm Reply

    Learned Hand
    Said this on August 11th, 2007 at 11:51pm:
    ——————————————————————————–
    That is exactly how it happened – evolution was an underdog theory that had to struggle to prove itself. It did so over a number of years by accumulating evidence, accurate predictions, and useful explanations for existing data that supported further developments in biology and other scientific fields. Evolution didn’t become the dominant theory overnight – it competed with creationism, and won by virtue of its more useful, more testable, and more accurate results.
    ———————————————————————————

    First of all, you said ‘accurate predictions’, just how did science conclude these predictions were accurate? No form of evolution has ever been observed, recreated, nor proven accurate. In order for this to be concluded they have to prove that all elements in the present day were in exactly the same state ‘millions’ of years ago, there is no way evolutionists can stand on a prediction as being absolute when these constants have never been proven to be… constant throughout this make-believe evolution cycle through billions of years.

    The ‘number of years’ at most for evolution to have been accumulated would be, 500 years; and thats a stretch in itself! In the years the evolution theory has been studied, by the definition of evolution itself, there is no way or physical evidence that exists to support the theories claims. The only evidence evolution has to stand on is best guess hypothesis and process of elimination, that which is left, must be the answer. The problem is nothing more than a man’s idea was considered to be a legitimate process to eliminate, where evolutionists err is they never consider that something divine by nature, rather than nature itself exists.

    I’ve made this statement before and will do so again. Just because the majority of any population agree, does not make them right. The same goes for the minority populace being wrong.

    Its funny to me that the evolutionist community put themselves up so high and mighty both in the understanding of evolution ‘science’ in contrast with religion. I find this funny because if they had ever bothered to read and consider trusting in what we know to be true, you Evo’s might have caught this interesting tid bit in the KJV…

    1 Timothy 6:20-21
    20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
    21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
    KJV

    God warned Timothy and us even before the idea or word evolution had surfaced years ago in his word. You can deny all you like, its a free will inherited right you have from God, but the fact that so much of what is happening today and what has surfaced, is exactly that which was written and told would come to pass many years by the inspired Word of God; surely should make one of evolution ‘faith’ strongly consider, they might be in error.

    One other thing to consider from God’s Word…

    Rom 1:20-23
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    KJV

    Bible tells us those unbelievers can’t understand lest a man should show and edify them. So, by the above scripture you might realize that God knew that one day man would deny God’s power and he as the creator. They became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Meaning they began to believe that which they could think of in their own minds despite God and knowing of his existence (sounds a lot like Lucifer before the fall of him and his Angels). Mmmm, you never know, that KJV might be right…

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools….

    I can’t tell you how many people I have heard and engaged with who automatically deduct 20 IQ points from my side because I am a creationist and they are something else. Professing themselves to be wise….

    You are believing in just another falsification of truth to detour others like yourselves from believing and accepting what is to come. Devil never cared how he gets you, just as long as he gets you. Evolution, just like Santa Clause, is a great story, sounds good, but never have I seen a fat fella in a red suite bring me presents, eat my cookies and flying around in a sleigh with a bunch of reindeer huff’n and puff’n… Though i’ve never seen him, and though so many other thousands and millions of children have never seen him, they believe in his existance because Mommy and Daddy told them, and they sneak presents under the tree while baby is tucked in her/his bed, munch on the cookies drink a bit of milk, maybe stomp an ash footprint at the edge of the fireplace to make the hole story seem real.

    Difference in your evolution and my Bible is my Bible was written years ago by men who witnessed the events taking place. Because you can’t believe them doesn’t make my Bible false.

    Now I ask you… One question, think for a minute… What if I’m wrong, and they’re right… What if there is a God of judgement? What if there is a Heaven and Hell? Bible says ‘He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not, is condemned already.:

    Are you absolutly sure you want to place your faith in the hands of evolutionists with a theory that doesn’t quite match? If the evolution theory was so genuine and founded, why isn’t the evidence overwhelming? Because there is none?

    God Bless those in Christ Jesus and those seeking him,
    Gary Murray

  204. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 13, 2007 6:22 pm Reply

    darling: I so appreciate the fact that you can say something without incorporating an insult

    …….randomly varying replicators.”

    Works for me

    one little problem is you are assuming ‘random’ exists – just one example [one is all it ever takes]: when you do pick up a coin and toss it you are imparting a definite amount of energy. you are releasing the coin at a definite time and at a certain height. it has a definite angular momentum/ spin rate, trajectory/ velocity. the coin’s air resistance is known. the humidity, temperature, and air currents can all be known. electrostatic charge can be known. the resistance/ reaction force of the surface with which the coin collides can be known.
    infact nothing about the experiment was random at all. ‘random’ is the word “you” use for not knowing what the outcome is going to be.

    random is infact a euphemism for ignorance.

    the best thing people can come up with is event distribution curves. At the individual level stuff is either knowable or unknowable.

    see Heisenberg uncertainty. It is not that particles don’t have a definite position and velocity – it just that an earth bound observer cannot be certain of what it is.

    this then is where theology meets physics.

    How does God make so many things appear random without breaking out into a universally audible laugh?

    the other thing that hasn’t been discussed at all here is the distinction between the latent potential for adaptation or acclimatization manifest as point variations such as inversion, substitution, addition or deletion and what is/are truly a newly mutated forms via replication errors.

    if evolutionist really believe in beneficial mutation they should walk around with a rock containing uranium 238 in their hip pockets to advance lots of beneficial mutations in their offspring. Then their beneficially mutated children could meet the right beneficially mutated spouses with which their beneficial mutations will successfully pass on to a next generation who will outnumber and displace all the silly people who were smart enough to have grandparents who walked around with uranium 238 next to their genitals.

    all the best convincing your friends of a great way to improve the intelligence of their children.

    macromorphic evolution is the theory you get when you extrapolate off the page out of the room out of the building across the carpark out of the suburb, out of the city, out of the country, clear off the surface of the earth and into outer space. thats why francis crick had to invent panspermia – he was an honest man. cheers

  205. Learned Hand August 13, 2007 8:14 pm Reply

    It is very disturbing but “court” is anywhere the judge is, whether he/she’s working or not. Judges are not subject to the law, they are the law! They are given the power to lock you up for just offending them. They can lock people up for years without just cause and even if you prove they were wrong they don’t have to worry about paying the price on this Earth. They are even given the power to ignore the law.

    This is empty rhetoric; judges are absolutely subject to the law. Contempt of court is not merely “offending” a judge; there are strict legal standards even for civil contempt proceedings, and stricter ones for criminal contempt. Judges’ power to “lock people up for years” is pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, and subject to validation by a jury of the defendants’ peers. Judges are most certainly not “even given the power to ignore the law.” I began to ask why you would bother with such obviously false calumny; I realized, though, that the reason is clear. Most people here want to believe what you say, so they won’t care whether or not it’s actually true. I hold you to a higher standard of honesty than you hold yourself, though. Most of what you said above is untrue, and all of it is misleading. Need I bother to predict that you won’t show any concern for, or attempt to correct, your factual errors and untruths in the above statement?

    As for your questions, the moderator has asked us (and me, specifically) to be brief. I’ll try to comply.

    To Learned Hand: Why do you lie about me? Why do you lie about evolution? Why do you lie about yourself?

    I don’t, I don’t, and I don’t. (Nor do I think I’ve told you anything about myself which might be a lie. Where does this accusation come from?)

    Do you think, people will be better off to believe your lies over the truth?

    I believe, emphatically and passionately, that people should embrace truth and abjure lies. That is why I post here – I was shocked by the constant repetition of untruths and falsehoods by people who pretend to be wise, but are clearly incompetent in the fields in which they claim to be authorities.

    Are you a lawyer or a “high school kid” trying to lend himself/herself some credibility?

    Darling’s answer to a similar question was inspired: “[A]ssume I have no qualifications or affiliations. Focus on my arguments, not me.” Because I have already touted my credentials, however, there’s no point in pretending to be humble about them. I am a practicing attorney, with personal, professional experience in the legal areas about which I’ve posted.

    Do you realize that you confront the truth with insults? What do you have against the truth? What do you have against Christians?

    No, nothing, and nothing overall. Many Christians here, however, have demonstrated that they have no personal commitment to honesty or ethical conduct, and will commit any petty act of dishonesty that happens to support their ideology. Your choice to defend your ideology by adoring and fighting for ignorance is injurious to my opinion of other Christians. It’s probably not fair, but I judge them by the company they keep. If that company is a man who tells absurd lies (such as your claim that science teaches that genes think, or that individuals evolve through willpower) for ideological reasons…

    If you are a lawyer, are you scared of people you don’t deceive? Why don’t you study evolution? Your religion is falling apart around you, why don’t you dessert the sinking ship?

    I don’t deceive anyone, I do study evolution (as a layperson, obviously), and I see no reason to “dessert” empirical science. It’s very powerful and accurate, but not very tasty. Nor do I see any reason to desert it.

    How much do you have invested in your religion? Why do you associate your religion with theories that haven’t been dis-proven? Why are you scared of the truth?

    You don’t know my religion. Assuming you mean science, that’s not a religion; your rhetoric is silly. In any event, I invest in index funds. Also, I don’t, and I’m not.

    Why do you try and deceive the people, who might read your blind rhetoric? What is your purpose? Do you only attempt to deceive? In closing please show the evidence for your religion of evolution? Show us some piece of evidence that doesn’t point towards a creator. Show us why things would randomly get better without a plan.

    I think that the best answer to all of these questions is to repeat my plea: you cannot trust creationists, especially these creationists, to give an honest and educated picture of science. Three Crosses’ understanding of evolutionary biology is absolutely absurd, but no other creationist here could be bothered to point out his outrageous deceptions. If you want to learn more about science, read a book. Better yet, read a piece of peer-reviewed, published research – there are thousands and thousands of articles discussing the evidence for evolution. Creationism has some blogs, I guess.

  206. Learned Hand August 13, 2007 8:19 pm Reply

    Most preachers today . . . they conduct marriages under the authority of the state, instead of traditional covenant marriages.

    Is that an either-or proposition? I don’t know very much about the “covenant marriage” movement; is there any reason why it’s incompatible with a state-recognized marriage?

  207. EndTimes August 13, 2007 8:34 pm Reply

    For those that keep insisting that evolution only entails changes of gene frequencies in breeding populations (this is a good definition for population genetics) and that abiogenesis is not part of this package, in real life, evolution is always represented as a continuum from the big bang to monkeys turning into men. As much as you hem and haw to the contrary, the “working” definition of evolution ASSUMES that stellar, planetary and chemical evolution have already occurred by naturalistic means. Here is one science article to demonstrate this continuum. Many more examples can be found. So, don’t take my word for it, look at the evidence yourself. He starts with chemicals and ends with extant life.

    The Stepwise Evolution of Early Life Driven by Energy Conservation

    James G. Ferry* and Christopher H. House
    * Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Pennsylvania State Astrobiology Research Center, 205 South Frear Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University; and Department of Geosciences and Pennsylvania State Astrobiology Research Center, 220 Deike Building, Pennsylvania State University
    E-mail: jgf3@psu.edu .

    Two main theories have emerged for the origin and early evolution of life based on heterotrophic versus chemoautotrophic metabolisms. With the exception of a role for CO, the theories have little common ground. Here we propose an alternative theory for the early evolution of the cell which combines principal features of the widely disparate theories. The theory is based on the extant pathway for conversion of CO to methane and acetate, largely deduced from the genomic analysis of the archaeon Methanosarcina acetivorans. In contrast to current paradigms, we propose that an energy-conservation pathway was the major force which powered and directed the early evolution of the cell. We envision the proposed primitive energy-conservation pathway to have developed sometime after a period of chemical evolution but prior to the establishment of diverse protein-based anaerobic metabolisms. We further propose that energy conservation played the predominant role in the later evolution of anaerobic metabolisms which explains the origin and evolution of extant methanogenic pathways.

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/6/1286

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  208. EndTimes August 13, 2007 8:41 pm Reply

    Here are two more examples of the continuum from the big bang, “the vast variety of life on earth.” No, I have not in the least misrepresented what the real science world takes for granted on a daily basis. Abiogenesis is taken for granted to have already occurred and is part of the overall theory of evolution by methodological naturalism. Sorry, “Learned” Hand, you are once again categorically wrong again. So, keep up your lies and personal attacks against me while I rack up the debate points with real evidence. Rhetoric? that is actually your forte my friend. Lies, insults and misconceptions is on your side of the equation as well. By the way, abiogenesis is most often refered to as “chemical evolution.” It is a continuum in theory, in detail and in use.

    The primitive Earth

    The chemical and physical conditions of the primitive Earth are invoked to explain the origin of life, which was preceded by chemical evolution of organic chemicals. Astronomers believe that 20-30 billion years ago, all matter was concentrated in a single mass, and that it blew apart with a “big bang.” . . . As the protobionts grew and split, their RNA was passed on to offspring. In time, a diversity of prokaryote cells came into existence. Under the influence of natural selection, the prokaryotes could have given rise to the vast variety of life on Earth.
    http://science.jrank.org/pages/1387/Chemical-Evolution.html

    About this book

    Chemical Evolution: Structure and Model of the First Cell is a timely, up to date review and evaluation of the recent rapid evolution of theoretical and empirical knowledge in the vast, interdisciplinary study of the origins of life. With 35 contributions authored by 95 of the foremost scientists, it discusses many aspects of the origin of the first cell: exobiology in the solar system and beyond; the early paleontological record; physical, chemical, biological and informational aspects of the origin and structure of the membrane and the cell itself. The publication of the book commemorates the centenary of Alexander Oparin.

    Audience: Graduate students and researchers in the areas of basic, earth and life sciences who contribute to the study of chemical evolution and the origin of life.
    http://www.springer.com/west/home/astronomy?SGWID=4-123-22-33514381-0

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  209. Ekkman August 13, 2007 8:57 pm Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 8:33am:

    Ekkman Said this on August 12th, 2007

    “In closing, as Samphire told me, “Evolutionists can’t prove anything, only falsify”. So based on his words and tying in a thought from above, it is not only difficult, it is impossible.”

    True enough – because the same is true for science as a whole.
    It’s also impossible to prove the Earth goes around the Sun.

    It’s a subtle point, but I’m sure you can grasp it.

    “If evolution is science then I don’t see why astrology couldn’t be science too.”

    Evolution has predictive power. Astrology, not so much.

    Darling,

    Ekkman said:
    There is “predictive” power in astrology but most of the predictions are wrong as in evolution.

    A good thought for discussion on what you said, “It’s also impossible to prove the Earth goes around the Sun.”
    Check out this site for now. I can direct you to others later.

    http://www.geocentricity.com/
    When you get there, click on “Geocentricity” in the left column.
    Do a little reading before commenting, please! Thanks!
    “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”

    Remember you said it first. “It’s also impossible to prove the Earth goes around the Sun.” Or the sun is going around the earth through or by way of man’s understanding. Keep that in mind as you read the booklet in the link provided. I might add “by man’s logic and knowledge at the moment.” God made us in his image, it is a fallen image but his image nonetheless. It is hard to imagine what we could do if time keeps going. But because of sin we will destroy ourselves first or so it seems. If the Lord Jesus Christ doesn’t come back in the nick of time, no flesh should be saved. Many agree whether they are in “higher up class” or “lower down class” of people that we are on the brink of a nuclear war. When man comes up with some unbelievable things, he uses it for evil as fast as he does for good. Such as splitting the atom.

    In closing, thanks for your “subtle point.” I hope to deal with “prove” and “falsify” later. One subject at a time hopefully. I don’t want to take the focus off the subject that you brought up now.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  210. EndTimes August 13, 2007 9:00 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 5:21pm:

    Let us examine a short list of your false and misleading statements about evolutionary theory: It is factually inaccurate to say that evolutionary biology teaches that organisms evolve through blind chance.

    Dear “Learned” Hand,

    Here is one that you will have fun with. Let me quote from your favorite scientist on the issue of chance. Quotations by Ernst Mayr in his book: “Populations, Species, and Evolution,” 1963,1970.

    “Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on. Randomness of mutations. ” To sharpen the contrast with Lamarckian ideas of the environmental induction of the evolutionary changes, evolutionists stress the “randomness” of mutations. Since this term has often been misunderstood, it must be emphasized that is merely means (a) that the locus of the next mutation cannot be predicted and (b) that there is no known correlation between a particular set of environmental conditions and the particular allele among many potentially possible one to which a gene will mutate.” Page 102

    “Natural selection, being a statistical phenomenon, is not deterministic; its effects are not rigorously predictable, particularly in a changeable environment.” Page 108

    So, according to Ernst Mayr, both mutation and natural selection are not deterministic. It is by chance.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  211. EndTimes August 13, 2007 9:24 pm Reply

    Dear “Learned” Hand,

    Here are a couple more quotes from Ernst Mayr in his book: “Populations, Species, and Evolution,” 1963,1970.

    “It seems to me . . . that it is this indeterminacy of the selective aspects of the genotypic recombination that introduces the greatest element of chance into evolution. The truth of this assertion has been abundantly established in recent selection experiments. Variation in response was found in almost every case in which several daughter populations of a single parental population were exposed to the identical selection pressure. The uncertainty produced by the indeterminacy of genetic recombination and by the phenotypic equivalence of different genotypes is the most important random factor in evolution.” Page 126

    “Let us remember that evolutionary change is a two-factor process. One stage is the generation for genetic variation. It is on this level that chance reigns supreme. The second stage is the choosing of the genotypes that will produce the next generation. On this level natural selection dominates, while chance plays a far less important (although not altogether negligible) role. Chance causes disorder, selection causes order. Chance is disoriented, selection is directional (including stabilizing selection). Chance is often destructive, selection is frequently creative. Yet both chance and selection are statistical phenomena and thus they not only coexist but also, one might even say, collaborate harmoniously.” Page 128

    So, I stand by the statements of Ernst Mayr that evolutionis actually completely by chance mutations, chance genetic recombinations, chance environmental factors, and chance selective pressures. So, please don’t take my word for it, just listen to the experts.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  212. EndTimes August 13, 2007 9:55 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 5:21pm:

    It is ignorant to pretend that ongoing adaptation in the face of changing environmental pressures is not predicted or explained by evolutionary biology.

    Sorry, “Learned” Hand, I believe you are again misquoting my statement. I stated quite clearly that the evidence from EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of what will happen in the case of an “adaptive” pressure after it is no longer present is that the organism will return to it’s prior state. Let me give you some observed examples:

    The main conclusion from this study was that the medium ground finch phenotype “… represents a balance between introgression with G. fuliginosa, selection for larger … size in dry years and selection for smaller … size in wet years.”

    http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evol_3/0,8018,849374-,00.html

    Population Variation in Continuously Varying Traits as an Ecological Genetics Problem1

    P. R. GRANT and T. D. PRICE

    Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

    http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/795

    In other words, wet weather gives you small beaks, dry weather gives you large beaks and these fluctations are in a balance between the two. Evolutionists keep forgetting the balance of nature so evident. It makes it hard to make a bat into a rat and into a cat since most of the variables are not unidirectional, they are bidirectional or multidirectional and until we started to impact the delicate balance of nature (by our lusts for material things) otherwise known as the study of ecology, the world did pretty good on its own. Please note that you need to take account ecology in your definition of evolution as well.

    This is simply as I correctly stated previously. Take another look at my statements which are in perfect accordance with the observed data. You once again have falsely accused me, but I have already forgiven you and prayed for you today. I can’t give you an observed account of the multi-drug resistent TB since it was a hypothetical constraint based on the observed phenomena of adaptive variations, but it is a consistent example none the less. In any case, are you not getting tired of making false statements that are quite easy to refute? If not, I have enjoyed showing who is telling the truth in a calm and patient manner. That unfortunately for you, is not you.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  213. EndTimes August 13, 2007 10:01 pm Reply

    Elethiomel

    Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 1:46am:

    End Times’ argument about the dawkins quotes (the second of which he butchers by missing the whole section about natural selection) and the following analogy and nonsense about spock that he puts forth is really rather incoherent.Dawkins’ point is that people often accuse evolution of being a random theory or a chance theory, and the first quote is the point that it is completely obvious that if evolution were to rely on chance and chance alone, it would not work. the mutations occur by chance, they create the variation that we see, and then some of that variation is proportionally magnified in subsequent generations by differential reproductive success (natural selection).

    Dear Elethiomel, please refer to the comments on this subject by Ernst Mayr listed above. Sorry, but you are quite mistaken in your comments and Sir Fred Hoyle quite well has illucidated in peer reviewed scientific articles the complete impossibility of evolutionary theory due to such improbable probabilties that they are actually impossible. If you have some peer reviewed science articles to contradict this, please post them. I would be greatly interested to see your evidence for your criticism of my statements on Dawkins.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  214. EndTimes August 13, 2007 10:06 pm Reply

    darling

    Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 8:33am:

    Evolution has predictive power. Astrology, not so much.

    Dear darling, sorry but your comment is in total opposition to the comments by Ernst Mayr on this issue that I have listed above where he definitively states that Natural selection is not deterministic as you imply by stating it has predictive power. The variation is by chance, the genetic recombination is by chance, the environmental stresses are by chance and the selection is by chance. Do you not agree with your own champions of evolution?

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  215. EndTimes August 13, 2007 10:15 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 5:28pm:

    Let’s take a look at the good professor’s logic and see if it holds up. Is it a true statement that once the mechanism of a mutation is known, then the actually mutation itself is no longer random? Huhhhhh?

    Your eructation is appropriate; you have misunderstood (or are willfully misrepresenting) the statement here. Dawkins says, quite clearly, that mutations are non-random in a certain sense, “although these senses aren’t relevant to our discussion.” He then gives a simple example – a physical event with an understood physical cause isn’t “random,” because it’s predictable. An icicle falling from a rooftop as the temperature rises is a non-random event, and if you had enough data as to the characteristics of the ice and the temperature, even the time of its falling would be non-random. Dawkins notes, though, that for the purposes of practical biology, mutations are generally random, because they can’t be predicted with the available information. Once again, you are speaking without understanding, pretending to wisdom because it is more important for you to appear to be wise than to actually understand the subject. Is that Christian behavior? More and more, given your conduct, I suspect that it is.

    First, I have been very patient with you in not returning your obnoxious insults back to you and calmly answering your lies, inuendos and insults in a professional manner with appropriate references. That actually is Christian behaviour. I believe most will read over your comments and mine and agree that I do have a good grasp of the ToE and many of its problems from the point of view of peer reviewed science articles. I do from time to time review some of the creationist literature, but my favorite source when talking with people like you is the peer reviewed science journals. Mutations are random period no matter what understanding that we have of the mechanism of that mutation. Dawkins is using quite deceptive pseudo-science terms that are quite easy to refute simply by quoting other evolutionists.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  216. EndTimes August 13, 2007 10:27 pm Reply

    “Learned” Hand

    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 5:28pm:

    Find me a game that pays me for a run of flips with a >50% rate of “heads” and allows me to select beneficial results and discard the rest, and I’ll stake every dollar I have on it. That game’s a sure winner. There is no such game, because selection is a non-random result, despite your earlier claim that evolution is a blind-chance process. There is no such game because casinos, unlike creationists, must acknowledge mathematical realities. Please, once again, note that End Times has utterly misunderstood the science (and math) at issue here. Allow me to predict that he will cover himself with more angry accusations and shameful displays of results-oriented thinking rather than admit his error. He can do this – is encouraged to do this, in fact – because his audience, being mostly creationists themselves, will not hold him to any standard of factual accuracy or even to simple honesty. As long as he uses scientific vocabulary, he sounds correct enough to give the approved ideology a semblance of cover, and that is all that is required. He can be completely, one hundred percent wrong on the facts–he doesn’t even have to understand the issues. All that End Times requires of himself, and all that his audience asks, is that he be ideologically correct and never cop to inconvenient facts.

    Dear “Learned” Hand,

    I am sorry to dissappoint you, but you have once again stuck your foot in your mouth and come up short on your underlying knowledge of evolution. It is really quite a pathetic “contest” to refute your multiple false statements so easily from your favorite evolutionist himself. It really is not sporting at all but if you wish to continue to insult me, then I will over and over again show the EVIDENCE for others to consider and who it is that does or does not understand the ToE. I find your continued false remarks and outright lies actually quite pathetic. Don’t you have anything better to do then come here and be humiliated by your outright ignorance on the ToE? Well, if you wish to persist, fine with me, but you have not grasped that modern medicine is “evidence” not “results” based. I have learned my lessons in evidence based medicine well enough to know how to use it in the creation/evolution debate as well. So, that is one more false statement you have accused me with once again.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  217. EndTimes August 13, 2007 10:53 pm Reply

    Dear “Learned” Hand, since you don’t believe a word that I state, let’s go to the science journals. Accumulated genetic load is not only a great and serious problem for mankind already, it truly is a quite terrible problem for your ToE because it is outside of the “FORCE” of natural selection. Note that the data shows that the problem is linear and worsening. This again shows your complete ignorance on some very important present day implications of the creation/evolution debate. You have not yet got a passing grade on even elementary ToE questions.

    Monday, November 5, 2007[sic]

    Using Mendel’s Accountant to simulate mutation accumulation and genetic load in plants.
    John C. Sanford, Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired), Los Alamos, NM 87545, Paul Gibson, Int’l Inst. Cooperative Studies, Cooperative Studies Inc., PO Box 12830, Overland Park, KS 66282-2830, Wes Brewer, Computer Science & Electronic Engineering, Handong Global University, Handong, South Korea, and Walter ReMine, Science & Mathematics Dept., Northwestern College, St. Paul, MN 55113.

    Long-standing theoretical concerns about mutation accumulation within higher organisms can now be addressed with numerical simulation. We have developed Mendel’s Accountant, which is a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. We have used this program to study mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances. Using realistic estimates for the relevant biological parameters, we have investigated the rate of mutation accumulation, the distribution of the fitness effects of the accumulating mutations, and the overall effect on mean genotypic fitness. Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. This appears to be primarily due to the predominance of nearly-neutral mutations. The problem of mutation accumulation becomes severe when mutation rates are high. Numerical simulations strongly support earlier theoretical and mathematical studies indicating that “genetic load” is a serious issue. Mendel’s Accountant provides the opportunity to explore the relationship of mutation accumulation within the context of genetic resource preservation. Mendel also provides a practical basis for studying the basis of such things as hybrid vigor and numerous genomic evolutionary processes. Mendel’s accountant can be downloaded free of charge at http://sourceforge.net/projects/mendelsaccount. We welcome feedback and suggestions.

    http://a-c-s.confex.com/a-c-s/2007am/techprogram/P35998.HTM

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  218. Ekkman August 13, 2007 11:00 pm Reply

    btodd
    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 1:06pm:

    EKKMAN WROTE: All evolutionists and creationists on this blog should read this link that Three Crosses submitted. I read the article and watched the video on the link too. If evolutionists didn’t think it was true, I would be laughing my head off but I hurt for them so the humor goes to the wayside. It is funny but then again,

    I know that there are many that believe this nonsense. It is strange how they seem to get the right person who can speak just so intelligently about the stupidity of their belief system that it makes you wonder. It sounded so very good even after reading and seeing the nonsense that surrounds evolution. They have been blinded to the truth, they are not necessarily stupid, just blind. Think about the article and the video. They had these monkey men links as absolutes to many in high schools and some colleges but now they find out they weren’t the off spring of one another but neighbors to each other. Strange! Now they have MORE missing links that will never be found since they were never there to be found. It is surprising that they would even mention this find. I guess they figured that the creationist scientists would find out and report it anyway. Also remember that these monkey men were supposedly millions of years apart. Now they find out that they were neighbors to each other??? END QUOTE

    It’s not at all surprising that they would mention this find, because that’s what science does. As has been mentioned, science is self-correcting, unlike religion. If new data is uncovered that reveals a previous notion to be incorrect, then the theory is revised to reflect what is now known. That is intellectual honesty, and is absolutely necessary if we are going to ever LEARN anything. Religion however, simply says that we have the answer, it’s the same answer we have for every question….God did it. We have always known the answer, we need not look any further, and we certainly need not look for, nor admit, faults in our ’science’.

    As to the science, this simply confirms what people who understand evolution already know….that the linear chart cartoon you’ve always seen regarding human evolution is not likely to be the case…..as in the evolution of other species, it looks like the branches of a tree, in which some branches die out, while others continue, and split into new ones. That is why the poorly-reasoned argument of “Well, if humans evolved from apes, how
    come there are still apes?” falls flat. Because we share a common ancestor, and the ‘tree’ split into different branches, one of which eventually led to humans.

    If it were damning to evolution, of all people, Leakey would not have published the findings. So much for the conspiracy of evolution.
    Btodd

    Ekkman said
    Todd, that sounds good in theory. There’s that word again- theory. Evolution is nonsense so let’s look at the conspiracy of evolution. Just as the theories in evolution are falling to the wayside, the conspiraces in evolution are coming to the light.
    Could you tell me why they kept the peppered moth teaching going when it has been disproven over a hundred years ago? :

    “…And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell’s compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.”
    From ICR’s page, forgot the link.

    Or monkey men who were supposedly our ancestors. They have been proven wrong, falsified and still teaching them as our kin folks.

    “Time assures its readers that the creature walked upright. The evidence for this? A single toe bone. Time displays the bone with the unequivocal caption: “THIS TOE BONE PROVES THE CREATURE WALKED ON TWO LEGS.” But not until the last page of the eight-page article do readers learn that the toe bone was actually found some ten miles from the other bones. What evidence exists that the toe bone belonged to Haile-Selassie’s other specimens? None, other than speculation.”

    http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=59

    btodd said above: “That is why the poorly-reasoned argument of “Well, if humans evolved from apes, how come there are still apes?” falls flat.”

    Ekkman said: Todd you are building a strawman and arguing with yourself. I never said anything like you said above. So you battle that one out with yourself. You brought that subject up, not me.

    Back to my post…

    “Stephen Meyers

    “Earlier we mentioned the Discovery Institute “executive”, Dr. Stephen Meyers. He recently published an article, titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

    “…Evolutionists love to claim that creationists never publish in peer-reviewed journals. Creationists counter-claim that it is because evolutionists control peer-reviewed journals and won’t let creationist articles appear. Well, here is an example of what happens when a peer-reviewed journal does publish an article critical of evolution.

    “BIOLOGY JOURNAL SAYS IT MISTAKENLY PUBLISHED PAPER

    “A small scientific society has publicly distanced itself from a paper, published last month by its journal, which challenges Darwinian evolution. The Biological Society of Washington issued a statement saying that the paper, which supports so-called intelligent-design theory, should not have appeared in the journal. The controversial article is by Stephen C. Meyer, who directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle, and is a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, which describes itself as a Christian institution. The paper appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. According to the society’s governing council, the paper “was published without the prior knowledge of the council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or associate editors.” “We have met,” the statement said, “and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.” The statement said nothing about retracting the article. The paper was accepted for publication by the journal’s previous editor, Richard Sternberg, a fellow at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Sternberg is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, which promotes the idea that nature has a purpose. He did not respond to repeated telephone calls from The Chronicle. … Mr. Meyer’s paper on the much broader issue of the origin of animal phyla represents a significant departure, said the society’s president, Roy W. McDiarmid, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey. He received several complaints from society members, prompting the council to issue its statement. 5

    “Notice that Meyer and Sternberg are called “Mr.” rather than “Dr.”. Notice that Sternberg is no longer the editor. Is that just a coincidence? Notice that the Chronicle felt it necessary to mention that the previous editor was a member of an organization that “promotes the idea that nature has a purpose.” But Roy McDiarmid is “a scientist.” Notice the use of the terms “so-called” and “describes itself.” The prejudice just drips off the page.

    The Plot is Exposed

    “Evolutionists just can’t stand to have the theory of evolution examined openly and honestly. Any means that prevent criticism of the theory of evolution are justified in their eyes.

    “There is a plot alright, but the evolutionists are the ones doing the plotting. Evolutionists are the ones pressuring school boards to censor the science curriculum. Evolutionists are the ones putting pressure on peer-reviewed journals that publish articles critical of evolution.

    “Evolutionists are desperately afraid that someone will tell you, “Science is against evolution.” We hope to have struck fear into their hearts this Halloween season.”

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i1n.htm

    The conspiracies are all around us, you just need to look.

    If these are not conspiracies then I don’t think there are any.

    Here is another good article that shows they have proven evolution again.
    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i6n.htm

    Or was it another conspiracy? We could talk about Hackel’s embryos.

    “Clarification
    Subject: November 2004 Was National Geographic Wrong?
    From: Eddy
    Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:57:04 -0800 (PST)
    To: comments@ScienceAgainstEvolution.org

    “Editor:

    “My question is in regards to your Nov 2004 page, “Was National Geographic Wrong?”, in particular, the section on “Embryology”. Still, recently, I see embryology examples in textbooks and in exhibits. They don’t use Hackles drawing, but recent photos and such. You mention embryology as related to evolution is “an idea that evolutionists wisely rejected long ago”

    “What references do you have to support this notion? I don’t think I have read or seen anything where an evolutionist rejects this concept. I was a little excited to see this subject in the article, however, probably because of lack of space, there was no references.”

    “This is an excellent, exciting question! It takes us to the two questions that are at the heart of every scandal investigation from Richard Nixon to Martha Stewart. (1) What did they know? (2) When did they know it?”

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i3e.htm

    Go to the link above to get answer. Those tricky evolutionists. Many things in their religion are based on conspiracies. That is the only way they are going to keep going and that is by lying. Sad but true.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  219. ReadKJV August 13, 2007 11:02 pm Reply

    Hi Dr. Kent Hovind,

    I am praying for you and I trust your time in that facility is fruitful but short! I also pray for the same things for your wife including that her case is dismissed. Ken Ham’s newly opened Creation Museum is an influence for good, though I am sure that if he stood on the side of the Bible’s doctrine concerning its preservation he would be more effective. That museum’s opening caused some fierce anti-Bible comments to be made which I suppose is both good and bad. It is good in that the persecution lets us know wee are doing God’s work, but it is bad that it shows many hearts are not ready to meet God and are set against Him. May God grant them repentance before they die since a person’s final rejection of God’s words guarentees them a home in the lake of fire. I am 55 years of age, reasonably well read and traveled, but still have not found any reason not to believe the Bible is not wholly true. My Lord and Saviour Jesus christ saved me when I was 9 and I also have not found any reason not to trust Him that He saved me or that He will not keep and protect me through the rest of my earthly and throughout the next life.

    May God richly bless you and your wife and your children. Our family visited your museum one spring day in 2005.

    Sincerely,

    A poor rescued sinner

  220. EndTimes August 13, 2007 11:06 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 12th, 2007 at 5:28pm:

    “Similarly, you have utterly misunderstood the example of flipping coins. I honestly thought you would have picked up on this, being so finely educated. As you flip the coins, you write down the “heads” results. These are the preserved results, just as natural selection preserves beneficial adaptations. The “tails” results are discarded, just like fitness-negative adaptations. You are selecting for heads, just as natural selection selects for fitness. The result is a non-random, selected distribution. It does not matter if you are selecting for a very uncommon result, such as a coin standing on its edge; if you flip ten trillion coins over fifty million years, and apply a selective filter, you will accumulate a non-random distribution of the selected-for results. It’s not magic, it’s math. Very simple math, at that.”

    Dear “Learned” Hand, you once again do not understand a very well detailed medical concept in evolution called “genetic load” which is indeed represented by “complex” not simple math. The problem is that the genetic load of genetic diseases increases all of the time because the majority of these defects are recessive and silent. I have some very esteemed colleagues in this profession that I greatly enjoy listening to their lectures on this issue. We can look at the problem of inbreeding and cumulative genetic load of deleterious genetic diseases in dogs which, as is consistent with my prior statements, a rather large problem in certain breeds.

    The problem with genetic load is that most of the defects are silent which means they accumulate completely independently of natural selection. Thus, your statement that natural selection eliminates these bad genes once again shows your complete ignorance on anything but a cursory understanding of the ToE. I am sorry, but it is becoming tiresome talking with you since you not only don’t understand some of these basic concepts, you are also quite rude and obnoxious. I may or may not respond to any of your future statements depending on how much you libel me or defame me. I do reserve the right to defend myself from false accustations.

    With little patience for your quite uneducated commentaries and rude demeanor,

    Peter

    http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/load.html

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  221. EndTimes August 13, 2007 11:21 pm Reply

    To whom it may concern,

    I have only put forth my professional credentials on the occasions that people have accused me of being an ignorant, or stupid, or confused, or deluded, or lying, or deceiving, or idiotic “creationist” or whatever insult they put forth that we have seen on this blog over and over again. Sorry, but I do have the credentials and they are placed here only for the purpose that I have noted to refute the insults sent my way. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary to even mention them. Creationists come in all sizes, colours and shapes with a range of little to greatly educated histories. “Learned” Hand has continued to bring forth multiple ad hominem attacks against anyone that disagrees with him. If he wishes to do this, that is upon him, but I will simply put forth the evidence over and over again that shows what his actual understanding of the ToE really is. In such, I am hopeful that there will be many on this blog that will pray for his salvation since it was not many years ago when I too was quite aggressive in defending the ToE. In any case, let the truth of the real science be known to all. The Bible still stands and the ToE has not in the least knocked it off its stand.

    May the Lord God of Israel touch your hearts to hear and know the true and literal Word of God.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    The seed of the woman vs. the seed of the serpent: Is Genesis 3:15 a TWO way prophecy? It prophecies of the coming Messiah, and possibly of another? Related to this, are there two types of persons (saved and unsaved), or ... rather three? When one becomes a priest of a false religion and then argues on its behalf no matter what, has he or she "crossed some spiritual line"? I do not know, but for the Pharisees we see them addressing Jesus as a competitor of sorts, correct? They just didn't get it. He was crowding into "their sheep" with His teachings. Except for Nicodemus, the rest wanted Him done away with. I don't see Elijah trying to persuade the prophets of Baal, but rather (after many years of enduring their false teachings) inviting them to Mt. Carmel for a barbecue. If there are indeed "three" types of persons (?) then some will not be persuaded, no matter what. ... So, I wonder if we should spend much time trying to persuade them, or instead concentrate efforts to continue to go around evolutionist teachers, Pharisees, prophets of Baal, and the like? P.A. ]

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  222. Ekkman August 13, 2007 11:24 pm Reply

    Timothy Fellows
    Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 12:14pm:

    Timothy Fellows
    Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 12:14pm:
    … Dr. Hovind is being persecuted in the Unites States of America and is a litmus test for the Christians out there — Watch out, They’re coming for you next; unless, of course you conform to a state church system, fully approved and answereable to the government. Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? We ought to obey God rather than man. Please check our website, TrueReligionWorks.com We ought to obey God rather than man. Please check our website, TrueReligionWorks.com

    Ekkman said:
    Timothy,
    You said a mouthful here and it is truth. America that once was isn’t anymore. She has fallen to the wayside and is getting more and more evil everyday. We justify killing babies in the womb of their mothers, which should be the safest place on earth for them. We legalize perverted sex whether man with man or woman with woman or fornication, or adultery. All of it is perverted. When my wife filed for divorce, I saw how corrupt this system is. She has all the money and I was a stay at home dad raising our kids. I told her earlier in our marriage one of us will be with our kids. They are a year apart in the same month. They are August babies. They are totally cool kids, the best. But I guess a lot of fathers think that. I haven’t seen them in over a year, they are being raised by nannies and whoever else now. God is on the throne and I believe that he will get them back to me when my trial is over. I miss them ever so much, I cry for them a lot at the weirdest times. I miss them so very much. It is so easy to see why God hates divorce.
    I get pulled over by the cops quite a bit. It is the bumper stickers on my van that bugs a lot of them. I was pulled over today again. I quit counting the times now. Oh well! He told me that I made too wide of a turn. As he is calling me in. He said to me, “Don’t you think you did?” I tell him no. I just answered his question. He gives me this evil look and says, “I am right, you are wrong.” I said, “Yea!” I knew it wouldn’t do any good arguing with him. I have seen time and time again how corrupt our system is today. We are to pray for them though, they are people blinded by the evil one.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  223. Samphire August 14, 2007 4:46 am Reply

    Maturekid
    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 4:48pm:

    “This is just a little note as I spied something in the world news. England is getting hit by some nasty and rising flood waters. So here is to hoping our resident gentleman & critic Samphire finds himself in good health and safety.”

    Thank you, Maturekid, for your concern and felicitations. Thankfully, I took the advice of the Good Book and ensured not only that my house was not built on sand (although it is on sandstone) but also stands high on a hill. Consequently, I was not amongst those (mainly-insured) unfortunates who suffered the disaster. However, although some thousands of rich Christian middle-England suffered badly from the rain it bears no comparison to those many millions of poor Muslims in Bangladesh who are presently suffering even worse floods and will have lost pretty much everything they own. Bearing this in mind, perhaps Timothy Fellows should reflect on the ridiculous and sanctimonious self-pity of his recent post.

    Kind regards

    Samphire.

  224. Samphire August 14, 2007 4:54 am Reply

    To Timothy Fellows

    Welcome to the rough and unforgiving tumble of this blog – (see my post above to Maturekid).

    You wrote “Bunyan’s cell mate had moss growing on his eyebrows…“. Please would you give me a reference for this story as the event seems most unlikely.

    I know that JB wrote “ I have determined, the Almighty God being my help and shield, yet to suffer, if frail life might continue so long, even till the moss shall grow on mine eye-brows rather than thus to violate my faith and principles.” but understood this to be merely hyperbole.

  225. Samphire August 14, 2007 5:16 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes

    I have been away on the ocean blue for the last month so am having to catch up with you.

    I wrote this on July 12th at 12.37 pm “But just as languages have evolved over the centuries so has DNA over the many millenia. A large part of the Oxford Dictionary contains words which are no longer of any use but remain as historical relics. Similarly, current experiments seem to indicate that much of our own DNA no longer has function. If all DNA was created only 6,000 years ago what purpose has such enormous amounts of seemingly useless DNA “paragraphs” and even “chapters”?”

    You responded: “You once again are not representing accurately the current knowledge of DNA. Let me list some studies for your amusement. I am sorry to correct your inaccurate statements, but the science of DNA marches on to the drummer of linguistic analysis. You are also incorrect that the “junk” DNA is junk. We are just beginning to gain a better understanding of the 97% called junk and it is only through the tools of linguistics analyzing their complex language that we are now starting to understand this mystery as well. DNA is a language in every sense of the word. It came from the mind of God when He created all things.

    I protest; I did not use the word “junk” in my post for good reason. Indeed, my comment was perfectly accurate and scientifically up-to-date. It is a fact that the great majority of human DNA appears to be non-coding. However, a small but unknown proportion of the non-coding DNA is utilised for a number of non-coding regulatory processes. As I understand the current position it seems that about 2% to 3% of DNA codes and a roughly equal proportion is regulatory. That leaves over 90% which has no known function. If I am incorrect in this please give me a reference to any geneticist who is proposing that the entire genome is utilised or even utilisable. If a large portion is not utilisable what is its purpose? “I don’t know” will not be a

  226. Samphire August 14, 2007 6:17 am Reply

    Hi Three Crosses,

    To you and Learned Hand – please would you cease from accusing each other of “lying”; it is unhelpful to the debate.

    You wrote to LH “Your religion is falling apart around you”.

    It is as inaccurate to keep referring to the evolving theory of evolution as a religion as it would be to refer to quantum theory or germ theory in the same terms. Science goes where the evidence leads and despite your quoting of the constant creationist mantra the simple truth (ignore it as you wish) is that the 200 year body of evidence in its support gets greater each year. I think that it was Michael Behe or one of his cohorts who claimed around 1998 that the ToE would be dead in the water within five years. Time seems to have proved him wrong and, I suspect, will continue to do so.

    You asked “Show us some piece of evidence that doesn’t point towards a creator.

    It is a clumsily-posed question but if the theory of evolution has no evidential basis then it is difficult to understand why 100% of all God-created animal species found in the fossil record have become extinct (did He get the designs wrong?) or, conversely, why there are no extant animal species in the fossil record. It is even more difficult to explain from a design point of view why each year the conifer trees by my garage spew forth billions of microspores forming swathes of yellow powder on the ground and over my car – what a waste of bio energy and shampoo. Or why has there been over the last two millennia the birth and death of so many Christian denominations, sects and cults? The ToE has easy explanations for such phenomena.

    From a creationist point of view perhaps you could explain the design of the delightful but deficient female human pelvis, the presence of parasitic DNA, why we walk on the “wrists” of our feet, the purpose of the appendix, why primates have the mutant GLO gene, and the point of wisdom teeth, goose bumps, Phillip-George or hairy bottoms?

  227. GORGE August 14, 2007 6:21 am Reply

    1. Dear Learned Hand
    You stated:
    “Your story is probably fairly typical, in that creationists approach to science is determined in a matter of minutes by their perceived personal revelations. Please understand that objective science is not, and cannot, be reliant on religious experiences.”
    ,.,,,.,,.,,,.,..,.,…,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.

    I can perceive why people (for the reason of their presuppositions) would suppose that the content of my preceding post that I wrote to you might give the impression that reason or the mind (understanding) has nothing to do with the truth and that truth is simply apprehended mystically or as you say an impromptu experience. My basis for this knowledge is a relationship to God Almighty, the actual acquisition of knowledge involves communication, thinking, and a conscious, positive response to the knowledge acquired. In other words it involves reason, language, and faith.
    True (AKA biblical) faith is not an irrational leap in the dark, a submission to nothing in particular or because of irrational fear. It is a knowledgeable response to Gods communication with us.
    You could argue; if knowing requires faith and faith requires knowing, how did that darn GORGE or anyone else get started. The answer is twofold. First every human being, by virtue of being in the image of God, has an awareness of Deity as soon as he/she has self- awareness. This is built into people to provide a ground for knowledge. All Creation, including humanity itself, shouts of its Creator. The problem is that people suppress (often violently) this awareness, and by doing so they distort the truth they know. Thus everyone knows enough about God to be condemned for not obeying him.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:19-22&version=9

    Second, God initiates a special relationship with His people.
    As the father of the Demon possessed boy cried out, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
    Mark9:24
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%209:24&version=9

    In other words me Learned Hand; seek the Lord while He may be found!

    To illustrate this awareness of Deity, think of Language: In order to understand what anyone is saying, one must first of all have some idea of what the other person is talking about.
    “Words produce understanding by appealing to experience and leading to experience. Only where word has already taken place can word take place. Only where there is already previous understanding can understanding take place” ( G. Ebeling, word and faith London:SCM, 1963)
    How then is communication possible?
    When a Child learns a language, he must already know something about the language so he may understand the divers sounds. But in order to know the language, he must first learn it. How does the child get started? They must have some sort of innate linguistic capacity, something that is inherent to recognise and understand which will place them on this spiral of understanding.
    The Bible indicates that humans are created in God’s image. This implies many things, but it certainly includes our ability to communicate with God and others.
    From a non-Christian point of view, N. Chomsky recognizes that language is inherently too complex for child merely to learn it. He suggests that linguistically must be part of the human genetic make-up; it must be innate. (see N.Chromsky, language and responsibility: Sussex;Harvester, 1979)
    My theism is able to answer the question of where such an innate linguisticality came from: we are created in the image of a speaking God.

    See Dan McCarthney and Charles Clayton, let the reader understand: P&R, 2002

    GodBless

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  228. GORGE August 14, 2007 6:51 am Reply

    Dear Geno,
    Thanks for the detailed reply. It raised a number of issues, some I DISAGREE with, nonetheless I do appreciate you have spent time expanding on why you believe what you believe and also that you have studied much on the subject. (although I also realise it’s your undying desire to see the back of these YECists.)
    I presently do not have a computer online at home, neither have I the time to make the research needed to make an adequate response ( I would really need to watch again what Dr. Hovind says about the subject within his seminars to make sure, and do a bit of research comparing what you have said about Aig’s findings). Hopefully my computer will be on line next week.
    God bless

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  229. DQ August 14, 2007 7:35 am Reply

    The editor said:
    For specific battles the Children of Israel were given specific instructions. That sometimes meant killing all human and animal life in a town.

    See, I just can’t see how you can say god is loving and merciful when he goes around giving “Specific Instructions” to kill children. I mean, listen to yourself. Do you even realize that you have DEFENDED CHILD MURDER? You are actually defending it! I cannot do that. Some things are absolutely wrong, period. Child murder and raping virgins captured in battle fall into this “absolute moral wrong” category. I guess you could say I believe in moral absolutes.

    You, on the other hand, are a moral relativist. You say (I assume) that child murder and rape is wrong, UNLESS god tells you to do it. That is moral relativism. Certain things are wrong sometimes, but other times they are OK. How can you bring yourself to defend MURDERING CHILDREN AND RAPING VIRGINS? How do you look in the mirror? These are honest questions, I am really confused, since you seem like a decent person. How can you defend this horror, this terrorism?

    I could never worship a god who orders people to kill babies. I guess the bible did get one thing right though, when it said “happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

    Also, I find it hilarious that you keep telling people to PERSUADE, not call names. You published an article in a magazine with a global circulation in which you said everyone who believes in evolution supports rape. (Then you came on this blog and defended rape, which is pretty funny in and of itself.) How is accusing evolutionists of supporting rape “PERSUADING”? I’ll tell you something- I read your whole article with interest, and then I got to the part where you called me a rapist. And I instantly forgot everything I had read. Your article could have contained the absolute proof of your claims, the holy grail that creationists have been searching for for years, the one thing that will finally make all us heathens realize that you’re right and we’re wrong. And you would have lost your chance when you called me a rapist and revealed your true nature. You are not interested in persuading anyone. You are interested in the applause of the ignorant. The people on this blog who already agree with you and parrot your poison are apparently enough to make you happy. I need a little more.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: The TEACHERS of evolution (unwittingly, at least usually) encourage dishonesty, murder, rape, stealing, etc. Beliefs lead to actions. If one believes that "God does not see" their actions - this encourages some behaviors over others. Honesty is definitely NOT encouraged when one ascribes to evolutionary beliefs. Evolution also teaches the opposite of "Honor your Father and your Mother" (Fifth Commandment) when it implies/teaches that the future is in the offspring, so that one should concentrate on the children. Evolution teaches values.

    America is in a "Culture War", and it is one largely of values: the culture of life vs. the culture of death. Note that it is the "culture of life" folks who are usually for capital punishment, but the "culture of death" folks are usually against capital punishment. Interesting contrast? Hypocritical? Who should society allow to be put to death: the innocent (like the unborn) or the guilty (like murders)? Should a disabled woman like Terri Schiavo, have been put to death?

    Sodom and Gomorrah stood against God's commandments. The Owner got rid of them. That is His right. This is His planet. A farmer can till under a bad crop. Is this unfair? It may be, but we humans are not at the center of attention. We are instead called to (individually and societally) put the Creator at the center of our attention. Job, chapter 1.

    When He told the Israelites to "till under" an entire city, wasn't it His right to ask this, and then consequently their responsibility to do that? We can look at the cup as half full or as half empty, but it is the same cup. Humans are not at the center of attention. We are participants, but there are higher beings as well. Job, chapter 1. And there are lower beings like sheep, chickens, dogs, and pigs. Is this life "fair" for them either? Seriously. How about for turkeys? Turkeys find out the hard way about how wonderful Thanksgiving is. This planet does not revolve around what is best for turkeys either. An odd parallel? Well ... it kind of makes sense to me, I think. Job's camels (Job 1:17) had no idea why they were one day driven away from where they used to dwell.

    For me, I know that there is unfairness in this life. I can INTERPRET my humble life as one of blessings, or one of less than what others have. Hey, that is unfair! Those folks on TV have it great, don't they? Is the God of the Bible unfair? From a human-centric standpoint - YES. But, this life is temporary. To my understanding of reality, this life is not all that there is. Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

    I drive or walk down the street and see other humans. Each one of them was made in God's own image. Each one is an eternal being, bound for Heaven or Hell. "But for the grace of God, there go I." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..." but in this Culture War we are losing this understanding of the intrinsic value of human beings (and of unalienable rights due them), particularly for innocent life. Conversely the "culture of death" folks want the innocent killed, but the guilty not killed, after the due process of law! What is/was normal is being turned upside down.

    Does evolution teach/encourage one to commit adultery or not? ...Shouldn't one "spread their seed" as in "survival of the fittest" and all that? If "God does not see" (according to one's beliefs) then this directly affects human behavior. // And again, this planet is owned; your soul is owned. FEAR God and keep His commandments. The oversimplified "God is luf, luf, luf" (love...) stuff is incomplete, poor theology, I would contend. P.A. ]

  230. btodd August 14, 2007 8:44 am Reply

    THREE CROSSES WROTE: I think you made your point! END QUOTE

    Yeah, that statement didn’t come out right at all. Did you have anything to say about all of the rest of what I wrote, or were you just trying hone in on the only statement you could score a point on?

    Btodd

  231. EndTimes August 14, 2007 11:08 am Reply

    Dear darling, here is a response to your issue on Haldane’s Dilemma albeit a little late. Like usual, your reports and links are devoid of true substance. If we are going to discuss these issues, then true facts must be what is important. Your link to Panda’s thumb states that about 240 genes are all that separate us from chimpanzees. That is not a true statement. Let’s take a look at what was reported in Nature in 2004 on the percentage differences for chromosome 22. They found over 83% differences. We are different “kinds” pure and simple.

    Chimp Man differences much greater than the stated 154/238 in your article.

    “Chimps are not like Humans”

    Email: Cathy Holding – cathyholding@aol.com
    News from The Scientist 2004, 5(1):20040527-01

    “The vigorous debate on how different chimpanzees are from humans is fuelled by new data in this week’s Nature, as the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts.”

    http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22203/

    http://www.scottishchristian.net/creation-science/chip-human-similarities.htm

    Here are a couple brief rebuttals of criticism of Remine observations on Haldane’s Dilemma. It is still an issue for today yet to be solved despite your quite misleading link.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/sorry-but-you-dont-deserve-evidence-youre-not-peer-reviewed/

    http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  232. Hundredfold1983 August 14, 2007 11:29 am Reply

    God bless you!
    I hate that this happened to you and you are forever in my prayers.
    I enjoy your seminars and beleive you are a true man of God.
    May God keep you in his arms in your time of need.
    Thank you for your blogs.

    http://www.hundredfoldministries.org

  233. JohnLake August 14, 2007 11:41 am Reply

    Three Crosses
    Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 10:10am:

    God bless america! God save us all!
    P.S. the A in America isn’t capitalized because according to the “truth” and the “law” it is one nation under God!
    three crosses

    Here is a quick grammar lesson for you TC, America is capitalized because it is a proper noun. Whether it is used to reference to the United States of America, Central America, South America or American Standard(TM), it is always capitalized. Could you please provide any “truth” or “law” that would require a change to the rulesof English grammar. See rules 2 and 13.

    The actual quote from the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag is “one Nation under God,”. The Pledge has no legal standing or power as to the definition or status of the USA and in fact, no one can legally be required to stand and/or recite the Pledge. Besides Title 4>Chapter 1>§ 4 of US Code, there is no other reference to “one nation under God!”[sic] in US statutes or in the US Constitution.

    JohnLake

  234. darling August 14, 2007 1:19 pm Reply

    Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 6:22pm:

    “one little problem is you are assuming ‘random’ exists…
    How does God make so many things appear random without breaking out into a universally audible laugh?”

    If you arguing for theistic evolution, I don’t have a problem with that.

    “if evolutionist really believe in beneficial mutation they should walk around with a rock containing uranium 238 in their hip pockets to advance lots of beneficial mutations in their offspring.”

    Unfortunately, scientists also believe in harmful mutations. Of course, you knew that.

    EndTimes Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 8:34pm:

    “For those that keep insisting that evolution only entails changes of gene frequencies in breeding populations and that abiogenesis is not part of this package, in real life, evolution is always represented as a continuum from the big bang to monkeys turning into men.”

    Perhaps part of the continuum, but a separate part. Unless you want to accept that conclusive evidence for evolution would also be conclusive evidence for abiogenesis.

    Ekkman Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

    “There is “predictive” power in astrology but most of the predictions are wrong as in evolution.”

    I don’t know. Evolution predicted that patterns of genetic inheritance would exactly mirror the patterns seen from fossil/morphological evidence. That’s a pretty risky prediction that could (and still could) destroy evolution. As it happens, evolution was right.

    “When you get there, click on “Geocentricity” in the left column.”

    As it happens, I’m very familiar with that site. In fact, a few months ago I started using it to show the similarities in rhetoric between Flat Earthers, Geocentrists and Young Earth Creationists. That’s still a work-in-progress, but fascinating all the same.

    “Remember you said it first. “It’s also impossible to prove the Earth goes around the Sun.””

    Or that apples fall because of gravity, or that electrons exist, or any other scientific theory you can think of. Jolly good.

    EndTimes Said this on August 13th, 2007 at 10:06pm:

    “Dear darling, sorry but your comment is in total opposition to the comments by Ernst Mayr on this issue that I have listed above where he definitively states that Natural selection is not deterministic as you imply by stating it has predictive power.”

    Fortunately, that’s not what I meant by predictive power.

    Evolution predicts that genes will show patterns of descent, that rabbits will never be found in Precambrian rock, and that cows will never give birth to chickens. Prove those predictions wrong, and you disprove evolution.

    People often ignore this predictive power and instead focus on explanatory power. There are an infinite number of explanations – but only evolution has withstood the test of its predictions.

  235. darling August 14, 2007 1:40 pm Reply

    EndTimes said this on August 14th, 2007 at 11:08am:

    “Your link to Panda’s thumb states that about 240 genes are all that separate us from chimpanzees.”

    No it doesn’t. It says “…no more than 238 fixed beneficial mutations is what separates us from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.”

  236. EndTimes August 14, 2007 1:48 pm Reply

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: . . . So, I wonder if we should spend much time trying to persuade them, or instead concentrate efforts to continue to go around evolutionist teachers, Pharisees, prophets of Baal, and the like?

    Dear Paul, thank you for your wise counsel. First, as I have testified previously, I was once a very ardent defender of evolution and I have also unfortunately in that time been guilty of criticizing Christians simply for practicing their faith. I am glad that a faithful man of the Lord did not give up on me for nearly 18 months until the Lord moved upon my heart through a specific set of knowledge showing me that His Word is the true, literal Word of God. Secondly, perhaps the main reason that I so vigorously defend against falls statements on creation/evolution is the tendency for many evolutionists to unfairly use intimidation tactics and insults as their weapons, not simple facts and logic. Standing up to a bully is the only way to stop their insults. I do also believe that some Christians do become confused on what the real science actually states about several issues and for edification of the saints, I persist. In a nutshell, I don’t wish to see victory by default against the many actually truths of the Bible because we were not willing to stand up and list from peer reviewed science articles the truth of creation and not just the usual evolution rhetoric. Once again, the peer reviewed science literature is not a threat in the least to the truths of the Bible and I quite enjoy digging up those facts not from creation links, but from Nature and other science journals. For those in the science fields that remain honest in their inquiries, they are not afraid to report true findings in their studies. In a sense, I am quite willing to contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints in the like manner as Dr. Hovind has shown us as well. However, you are correct that there may come a point to simply let stand what is standing.

    Thank you again for all of your efforts in moderating this blog.

    Sincerely,

    Peter Laird

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  237. EndTimes August 14, 2007 2:04 pm Reply

    My dear Samphire,

    It is a joy to have you back on board with your gentlemanly manners which have been most lacking on the part of several commentors in the last two months. Forgive me if I did not characterize your statements on “junk” DNA correctly. However, the jury is still out on what 97% of the genome actually does. Are pseudogenes evidence of an evolutionary past, or from creation, are they evidence of progressive demise of the once perfect genome created by God? Unfortunately, you have to admit, these questions turn out to be metaphysical in nature and not scientific in nature simply looking at the same set of data. The entire issue of genomoic linguistics is quite fascinating no matter which side of the table you are playing on. It appears at this time that the likelihood of the majority of the genome having no purpose at all is not in keeping with the precision that we see in the 3% that codes specifically for proteins or offers directional support to the cell. Simply because it is “noncoding” does not mean it is purposeless. The fact that we are finding evidence of language functions in this section that has for a long time been called “junk” is quite an astounding discovery. This section has now had several elements of language documented in its sequences very emphatically thus launching the entire genomic linguistics branch of science. Again, because we do not yet understand this language fully, does not prohibit the importance of its presence. Once again, back to the Perry Marshall question.

    So, welcome back my fine mannered friend even if we have not found much to agree upon in the last several months. You are nevertheless a welcome part of this blog and in many ways it is in a great part your efforts to secure an orderly approach to these discussions that have helped this blog be the unique encounter between creationists and evolutionists that it usually is with a few noted exceptions. Again, welcome back.

    Most sincerely,

    Peter Laird

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  238. btodd August 14, 2007 2:42 pm Reply

    EKKMAN WROTE: Todd, that sounds good in theory. There’s that word again- theory. END QUOTE

    Yes, and as usual, a creationist is trying to conflate the scientific usage of the word ‘theory’ with the everyday usage a layperson would use, as in, “I have a theory about UFOs”. I will skip explaining the difference (once again), because you don’t care to acknowledge it since it would undermine your rhetoric.

    EKKMAN WROTE: Evolution is nonsense so let’s look at the conspiracy of evolution. Just as the theories in evolution are falling to the wayside, the conspiraces in evolution are coming to the light.
    Could you tell me why they kept the peppered moth teaching going when it has been disproven over a hundred years ago? END QUOTE

    Ah, more conspiracies. Last time, you assured me you had experts in the necessary fields to prove to me that 9/11 was perpetrated by our government. Then, when pressed for those experts, you linked me to a THEOLOGIAN. I asked for demolitions experts, structural engineers…..and you gave me a theologian. I realize that you have a higher opinion of theologians than I do, but I think we can both admit that structural engineering and controlled demolitions aren’t part of the theological curriculum.

    Regarding this particular ‘conspiracy’, I will tell you that I don’t know anything about the peppered moth. My gut feeling is that you have probably taken real science and misrepresented it in order to further the idea that evolutionary science is a fraud. And EVEN IF THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE IS TRUE, it wouldn’t make any other evolutionary science-related find a falsehood by default, either. This is classic conspiracy-thinking….take one past event and try to make it representative of all current events. Much like your 9/11 Truth friends, who will shout out catch-phrases like “Read about Operation Northwoods!” when pressed on the lack of evidence they have for 9/11 Truth.

    EKKMAN WROTE: btodd said above: “That is why the poorly-reasoned argument of “Well, if humans evolved from apes, how come there are still apes?” falls flat.”

    Ekkman said: Todd you are building a strawman and arguing with yourself. I never said anything like you said above. So you battle that one out with yourself. You brought that subject up, not me. END QUOTE

    I’m certainly not attributing that particular argument to you, and I’m sorry if it appears that way. It was relevant to what was being discussed (since Creationists have actually made that argument), which was the misunderstanding about a linear vs. non-linear evolutionary pattern.

    EKKMAN WROTE: The conspiracies are all around us, you just need to look.

    If these are not conspiracies then I don’t think there are any. END QUOTE

    Conspiracies are all around for people who are susceptible to conspiratorial thinking.

    Btodd

  239. EndTimes August 14, 2007 4:17 pm Reply

    Dear darling, when they state that it is 238 fixed mutations, that still occurs in genes. So what they are stating is 238 fixed mutations in the genome in all chimps or all men. The real numbers are 35 million point mutations and 5 million insertion, deletions etc. Your site simply is not reflecting the reality of the situation of 40,000,000 genetic differences. The results coming in now with at direct comparison show that man and chimps are different. The sources cited are not creationist sources (Nature journal) Huhhh, who would have known that? Haldane’s Dilemma is still a very real issue.

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  240. Rock Prevaricator August 14, 2007 7:04 pm Reply

    The moderator said:

    “I don’t see Elijah trying to persuade the prophets of Baal, but rather (after many years of enduring their false teachings) inviting them to Mt. Carmel for a barbecue.”

    - – - – -

    I agree.

    If God has given them up to their vile affections and reprobate minds, then who are we to try to “persuade” them otherwise? I see no reason to debate these “people who say in their heart THERE IS NO GOD”. It is a waste of time. Like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. Don’t cast your pearls before the swine.

    The man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

    Let them go. None of us will convince them otherwise. Let our posts be to discuss the truth with other believers or those really seeking the truth.

    Arguing with a diehard evolutionist??? It’s a snare from their father. Their father has no problem sacrificing his kids in an effort to entrap you in his little games. Believers should be above this.

    Arguing with a diehard evolutionist is like cursing the darkness. Rather, you should shine a light for the believers to see. Encourage your brother or sister in Christ. Leave the lost to God. They have heard the truth; so let God work on them. He can do a MUCH better job than we can.

    Besides, they can’t even create life from non-life. So until they do that, their “Theory” has been demoted to a flaky hypothesis. The multi-billion dollar canning industry says their “theory” is bunk. They know if there is life growing in their cans, then someone screwed up, NOT that life spontaneously generated.

    And furthermore, if scientists can make an amino acid that survives, that only proves that it takes intelligence to make it all happen. The lost are blind to this paradox. Even then, all you have is an amino acid. Big deal. Then what? It takes a lot of FAITH to fill the earth with the variety of life we have with an intelligently designed amino acid.

    Again, let the evolutionist go. They’re grasping at straws. Frantically denying their ship is sinking. It’s a sad sight, knowing they’ll take so many down with them.

    Rock

  241. darling August 14, 2007 9:02 pm Reply

    EndTimes Said this on August 14th, 2007 at 4:17pm:

    “what they are stating is 238 fixed mutations in the genome in all chimps or all men.”

    No. Again, what they are stating is 238 fixed beneficial mutations (out of 22,000 genes) separating us from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans.

    To say that Haldane’s (so-called) dilemma is concerned with every genetic difference is to completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) the issue.

    “The sources cited are not creationist sources

    Of course not. They’re scientific sources.

  242. Diamond August 14, 2007 10:38 pm Reply

    Dr. Hovind,

    I hope you see this comment through all the clutter. Because you answered God’s call for your life, my wife and I have gained so much confidence in our Creator. We have found so much joy through your ministry and we lift up our prayers for you, your wife, and your family in this time of testing. Thank you for enduring this time in your life and providing an example to Christians everywhere. Thank you for having a backbone and standing up for what you believe!

    When we had heard that you were in prison, our hearts immediately went out to you and your family, and we were encouraged to find these blogs and hear of God’s continuing work through you even while in prison!

    In His love,

    Tyler B

  243. YoCuzwaasup August 15, 2007 12:27 am Reply

    Enough talk watch what happened to a woman and her life when GOD grabbed her.
    http://www.shelleylubben.com/index.php?truth=home

    Go to resources, then to videos

    God is real. Religion is real. The religion of the evolutionist, and the religion of the believer. Big bang, or the meteor? Why is this always shown in dino movies geared toward kids? Like Hitler propaganda the youth of his generation before, (The Brown shirts) the end result was 600,000 Hebrew’s slaughtered + other’s who did not hold to Hitler’s beliefs. Dr. Hovind is just the start of American’s who rock the boat, and those in power, will find anything to shut them up.

    I have a question? How does a meteor explode? How does it make it through earth’s atmosphere? I know you’ll come up with some story. Some even wilder that what we tell from the Bible. But like all your stories, It will begin with once upon a time, and include the words … may, could have, we think, and of course WE DON’T KNOW. At least we say it’s a “Miracle”, (a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency) thus saying God did it. Now what is the difference with your religion, and my historical accounting of Jesus? He may not be who he claimed to be but, He did live, and died on a cross. This is fact, and documented. The rest is finding out through a personal relationship with Him. You say it is impossible? I say it is not cause I have one with Him. Did you ever ask Him to open up the eyes of you heart, or is your heart that hard. The Video I ask you to watch is just such a person. She wanted to be right, but being right, is one thing. Being righteous, only God can do this.

  244. Three Crosses August 15, 2007 1:30 am Reply

    I’m sorry there are just to many posts to answer:

    To btodd: You were making accusations at Dr. Leakey. The rest of your statement seems to be talking about how preachers of evolution don’t keep using fraudulent, deceiving and inaccurate science to try and convince innocent children their religion is accurate.(EndTimes gave some very good examples)

    To Samphire: I’m not accusing self proclaimed learned hand of lying. I asked him why he lied. Examples:
    ” Three Crosses’ bizarre and utterly fallacious belief that individual organisms evolve through an act of conscious willpower.” and “It’s OK to be a liar, you suggest, because everyone lies sooner or later. That doesn’t excuse willful and repeated deceit”. You might also note he lied about it when I asked him “I don’t, I don’t, and I don’t.”
    I noticed you didn’t offer any evidence of your religion of evolution that doesn’t point towards a creator. One other point, this isn’t a debate at best it’s an online argument. To be a debate it would have to be in front of an audience, on a time limit and without the blatant plagiarism that goes on.

    To Self proclaimed “Learned Hand”: I would like to suggest a couple of books first and foremost a KJ Bible you might learn a lot, second a dictionary.

    To Ekkman, Endtimes and others: A couple of thoughts: Odd that some believers of evolution actually believe conspiracies don’t exist. Maybe they have never heard of an instance where more than one person conspired to do anything. They must live very lonely lives. Or maybe they’re ignorant of the meaning of the word conspiracy. Or maybe they are just trying to say “look at me I can say conspiracy”!

    To John Lake:
    capital G little me it’s literature i wrote it.

    Have a blessed day!
    three crosses

    P.S. EVOLUTION CONDENSED: Evolution took billions of years to happen very quickly, on purpose, through a bunch of accidents, rather than die, with no plans or supernatural processes. It could change hydrogen, into rock, into weather, into lava, into life, into an Ipod, so you better not mess with it. It just happened OK! It was cause that animal changed it’s color, to blend in with the landscape, to make it’s neck grow longer, so that it could reach the food up high. Nothing else could. Bats were originally blind mice that blindly threw themselves into the air after insects they could kind of hear, so they grew wings to give them an advantage and radar so that they could quit running into each other(maybe there was three of them). Sure the universe got older for 200 yrs. but now it’s getting younger cause our math doesn’t work. 99% of species have gone extinct but these three monkey’s have to be man’s ancestors they all lived together but that’s OK I live with my grandfather and he was a monkey. You know we are 60% banana, yup we have 60% of the same DNA as a banana were probably part finch to. So that means if a finch and a banana meet in a singles bar and they have a common ancestor, (the rock) it’s [SHOCKER] INCEST! Yes it’s Darwin and his “finanas”! Hey wow! you can eat plants or animals what a coincidence. Life is to complicated to have been planned, it must have spontaneously formed very quickly over billions of years with lightning and soup. Hey look, there must have been localised floods all over the Earth, water must have covered Mt. Everest that proves water flowed uphill to cut the Grand Canyon. I guess maybe the clams hopped up theer and then their vestigial limbs fell off and they couldn’t get down. So they evolved into stone to stay warm. Hey look water cuts through things really fast that means billions of years ago, in the land of OZ, it must have moved very, very slow, but that’s OK! cause when evolution got started, it happened all at once. Hey evolution says everything has a common ancestor that means that everyplace a different language is spoken that the inhabitants must have evolved from different flora and fauna, and that is why my hair is brown. Hey how about that, if I could just mix in the right couple of chemicals, I could be a chimpanzee. Then I could fit into the car pool lane better. Then I could dump a couple of chromosomes out back and become a tea leaf cause I live with grandma and she’s a tea leaf. The real shame is that the whale can no longer take a simple romantic stroll with his sweetheart “finana”. Look though! that’s why a duck waddles it’s because of evolution. He might be trying to attract that hot little “finana”. Look at my evidence, I’m here! (some of that was sarcasm! Much too much was the religion of evolution)
    Works really well if you play “When you wish upon a star/rock” By J. Cricket in the background.

  245. Sade Tennyson August 15, 2007 1:48 am Reply

    Beloved Brother Kent Hovind & sister Jo,

    Precious greetings in Jesus worthy name.
    It is a priviledge to suffer for the name of our Lord Jesus, I pray the blessings of the Lord be upon you for preaching the truth & exposing lies that’s destroying many.
    The death of our Lord Jesus Christ yielded the result of reducing the number of people that will end up in Hell & it is still reducing it up till today. Blessed be the name of our Lord & glorybe to God for His divine wisdom.
    I pray that for each second you spend in prison, 10 souls would be reduced from the kingdom of darkness register in the mighty name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
    Remember your reward is waiting in heaven. All things work together for good to those that love the Lord, this situation will work out together for your good as well in the mighty name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
    The grace & peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be upon Hovind’s family & CSE family in the mighty name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

    Sade Tennyson.

  246. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 15, 2007 2:29 am Reply

    Dear Paul,
    I have made some pretty awful mistakes while on this blog. I really did not want to give anyone the impression that they could fly to London, take out a copy of the Yellow-Pages and look up the telephone number of the British Accreditation Registry offices. bro. Moderator, I yield back the fact that Bar Council of London has not used B.A.R. as an acronym – even if it would make for a really excellent one – but I am not here to market their services. I am not paid to be here at all.

    bro. Moderator – I appreciate some of the links you and others have provided. In response to your torah links I checked against a Chuck Missler book and found in “Cosmic Codes” his reference to Random – or the false appearance thereof with: Proverbs 16:33 [see page 342 - cosmic codes]
    “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD”

    The question then becomes not so much whether or not all of creation outworks according to ‘obedience’ to scripture but: if God has been as intimately involved with every roll of the dice and every toss of the coin since the beginning of creation was God not also as intimately as involved with Herman Melville as He was with Moses.
    Herman Melville may not have been conscious of it – but can any of us write without subliminal messages to communicate? What are the codes even to this page?
    God is bigger than I perceived Him yesterday. Thank you for your input.
    I hope you can see what I just said. To him who has ears…..,
    and may to God be the glory.


    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    God in complete control vs. human free will. I am a person who highly endorses Dr. Chuck Missler's teachings. I have listened through his "Learn the Bible in 24 Hours" three or four times http://www.khouse.org/6640/CD105-1/ all the way through. I have not yet read his "Cosmic Codes" book though.

    There was a gentleman on the blog who recently asked whether God knew that Adam and Eve would sin by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby (potentially) setting them up for failure. There is a third option that I did not see discussed. -Were they to "never" eat from that tree; or was it rather a "not yet" situation? Was that tree and its power for a later lesson?

    True free will needs both options and the ability to act. This they had. I also notice in their judgment (Gen. 3) that the angel (Lucifer) and the two humans are judged together. The two humans testify as to the events; the angel does not. Then God pronounces judgment. 1 Corinthians 6:3 "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Was this a foreshadowing in type of future judgments as well?

    Pertaining to the (nonexistent?) "British Accreditation Registry", it appears that "Bar Council of London" is their proper name, http://www.barcouncil.org.uk is that correct? But I only know that from doing a couple of web searches. P.A. ]

  247. Samphire August 15, 2007 7:13 am Reply

    Paul. You wrote” …….but the “culture of death” folks are usually against capital punishment.

    Presumably therefore you are pro-death penalty.

    Given your support, which process would you prefer to impose if you had the choice: a quick painless execution or a long-drawn out affair with as much agony for the prisoner as possible? And which method? The rope? The electric chair? Perhaps garrotting? How about public executions?

    Given the opportunity would you be able to pull the trapdoor lever, press the switch or wind the screw? Which one would Jesus choose to adopt?

    I assume that you are not a happy bunny in that given there are more than 1000 murders and non-negligent manslaughter deaths every month in the US there are only some half dozen executions scheduled for the rest of August and only 11 for September, a few of which will be postponed. Presumably, you take the view that the execution rate is presently far too low.

    Given the common complaint on this blog that the US is now a fascist police state, what potent legal protection do you propose against the current arbitrariness in application and the views of individual prosecutors?

    “Does evolution teach/encourage one to commit adultery or not?

    The theory of evolution has nothing to say about human morality. It is about how things happen and not why. What do you think David and Bathsheba did all night – read the Origin of Species together?

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Is adultery sin? Is it wrong? Not "does it occur?" Not "do people sin?" But rather does evolution teach it to be wrong or rather that one should spread his seed? Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) teach it to be wrong. There are still practitioners of each religion who fail in this way. But one danger of evolution is how it moves the line of what is considered right and wrong in a society. Victorian England had one set of accepted behaviors; modern Britain has another. Evolution, at least by its implication that "God does not see", has a lot to say about the value of human life (innocent or guilty) and with human relations. A practitioner of evolutionary beliefs does not have to be concerned with adultery being "wrong" now does she or he? So then which course does that set of beliefs encourage?

    To want justice is a good thing. Cicero said, "We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free."

    Jesus dealt with capital punishment twice. There was a woman caught in adultery brought before Him (John 8:3-11). He wrote with His finger on the ground. Her accusers left. (Her "partner" never was present, it appears.) He told her to go and sin no more. As the Creator and as our future Judge He had the right to forgive the sin if He so chose to. The other occasion was when He paid the penalty for sin, by dying on the Cross. The death penalty is the required payment for all sin. It had to be paid by either the individual who declines to repent before God, or by a substitute: John 3:16; I Timothy 2:5; and Phil. 2:10-11. P.A. ]

  248. Samphire August 15, 2007 7:48 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes

    Thank you for your welcome. However, despite it, I reserve the right to remain mischievous.

    You wrote: “Learned” Hand has continued to bring forth multiple ad hominem attacks against anyone that disagrees with him.

    Why are you complaining? You express great admiration for Kent but much of his seminars are taken up in “multiple ad hominem attacks against anyone that disagrees with him”. Whether it be geologists, paleontologists, cosmologists, or biologists, if they hold different views on the age of the Earth then they are all to a man, (even the christian ones) “atheists” and “ignorant or liars” – source, The Age of the Earth seminar video.

    I assume that you accept that the generality of earth scientists are neither ignorant nor liars so perhaps Kent is highly misinformed about much of his “science”. He is certainly dishonest in the way he presents his seminars.

    Haldane’s Dilemma may be a current problem in evolutionary theory but, surely, no greater one than Lord Kelvin’s derived restriction on an upper limit for the age of the Earth based upon his ignorance of radio-active processes which were then yet to be discovered.

    I hope I interpret you correctly in that you admit that the problem of the constancy of c is a great hurdle for you in your belief in a young universe. Even if Haldane’s Dilemma remains to be resolved you, as a YEC, still have as yet an insuperable problem with the generally accepted age of the universe. I bet another golden guinea that Haldane’s Dilemma will be (if not already) resolved before your c problem.

    “Simply because it is “noncoding” does not mean it is purposeless”

    I thought that we had both agreed upon that point. Although some of the remaining 95% may have some current function I suspect a high proportion will not. The degraded and eroded haemaglobin genes in the icefish would be a good example. With the probable warming of the antarctic waters can it re-invent the two genes necessary to produce red blood cells before it is forced into extinction? No problem for those who believe in Noah’s Ark and the subsequent rapid evolution of the surviving “kinds” into species but for those of us who don’t we should be more pessimistic.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  249. Samphire August 15, 2007 8:38 am Reply

    Hi TC,

    “I noticed you didn’t offer any evidence of your religion of evolution that doesn’t point towards a creator.

    The point about the ToE is that it is a mechanistic process which does not require “a creator”. If it did then we would not be having these discussions.

    “One other point, this isn’t a debate at best it’s an online argument. To be a debate it would have to be in front of an audience, on a time limit and without the blatant plagiarism that goes on.“.

    Why? Debating is a sport which just sorts out the good from the bad debater. A good debater will be able to convince his audience from either side of the argument. I would make an appalling debater and would soon have even my own side voting for my opponent not because my arguments are necessarily incorrect but because I do not have the long-learned skills of a good public debater!

    Kent is a very good debater in that he adopts the style of a flibbertigibbet quickly jumping from irrelevant point to an erroneous one and then onto a third, failing to deal in any sort of detail but producing masses of crowd-pleasing “facts” most of them wrong . However, science is about substance and not glibness. That is why Kent and science don’t mix. He spits out the meat and then tries to chew the camel bones.

    Odd that some believers of evolution actually believe conspiracies don’t exists”

    We do actually – just not the “big conspiracies” such as the JFK assassination or 911. In the latter case some of us know a little engineering, chemistry and physics and are able to work things out for ourselves, Also, we find Okham’s Razor to be an excellent practical tool.

    Regards

    Samphire

  250. JR Turner August 15, 2007 10:40 am Reply

    Case dismissed, IRS lies to grand jury!!!

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070814-9999-1m14cerullo.html

    Kent and Jo Hovind are INNOCENT!!! The FRAUD continues!!!

  251. CreationCD August 15, 2007 10:41 am Reply

    Does the Big Bang, the formation of stars, the formation of the earth from a cloud of interstellar gas and dust, the origin of life from non-living chemicals and the geologic column belong in a discussion of evolution?

    Well, for the most part they are in all the Biology textbooks I have. They are usually under the chapter or unit for evolution. So the teacher says, “Today we are going to learn about evolution. 15 to 20 million years ago there was a big bang …” Yet, they turn around and say, “by a strict definition of evolution we cannot discuss the origin of the universe, the earth, and life within a debate of evolutionary theory.”

    Most definitions in these books will cover both micro and macro evolution. So indeed they do point to the peppered moth example and say, “See evolution is a fact … [we came from a rock 3.5 billion years ago].”

    I’m sure you would not be willing to concede the point (if it has nothing to do with evolution after all). Just for the sake of argument we’ll say that God did create the world 6,000 years ago and many forms of plants and animals at that time, and get on with the debate. Now, tell me your theory again.

    http://www.bible.ca/tracks/videos-quotes.htm
    see the video: Text book Fraud!

    http://www.3bible.com/video.php
    see the video: CSE Seminar 4(2003) Lies in the Textbooks

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
    see the videos: Origin of the Species parts 1-4

    http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/index.html
    see the videos: A Question of Origins
    Icons of Evolution

    Biology Textbooks

    Biology, Fifth Edition
    Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine
    Copyright 2000 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    ISBN 0-13-436265-9

    Unit 5: Life on Earth: Bacteria, Protists and Fungi
    Chapter 16: The Origin of Life

    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 342-343
    Miller Experiment p. 344
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 343-345
    Geologic Column p. 276-277
    Peppered Moths p. 297-298

    Evolution: The process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms; any change in the relative frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

    Life, The Science of Biology; Third Edition
    Purves, Orians, Heller
    Copyright 1992 by Sinaurer Associates, Inc.
    ISBN 0-7167-2276-3

    Part Three: Evolutionary Process
    Chapter 17: Origins
    Big Bang p. 385
    Formation of stars. p. 385-386
    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 385-386
    Miller Experiment p. 388
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 389-390
    Geologic Column p. 394-396
    Peppered Moths p. 409-410

    Evolution: Any gradual change. Organic evolution, often referred to as evolution, is any genetic and resulting phenotypic change in organisms from generation to generation.

    Inquiry into Life, Ninth Edition
    Sylvia S. Mader
    Copyright 2000 by McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
    ISBN 0-697-36070-9

    Part 6 Evolution and Diversity
    Chapter 27

    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 548
    Miller Experiment p. 548
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 549-550
    Geologic Column p. 552-553
    Peppered Moths p. 558

    Evolution: Changes that occur in the members of a species with the passage of time, often resulting in increased adaptation of organisms to the environment.

    Biology, The Unity and Diversity of Life, Fifth Edition
    Starr, Taggart
    Copyright 1989 by Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
    ISBN 0-534-09180-6

    Unit Six: Evolution
    Chapter 38: Origins and the Evolution of Life

    Big Bang p. 570-571
    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 570-571
    Miller Experiment p. 572
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 572-574
    Geologic Column p. 582-588
    Peppered Moths p. 547-548

    Evolution: In biology, successive changes in allele frequencies in a population, as brought about by such occurrences as mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and selection pressure.

    The Nature of Life
    John Postlethwait & Janet L. Hopson
    Copyright 1989 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
    ISBN 0-07-557035-1

    Part III: Life’s Variety
    Chapter 15 Life’s Origins and Diversity on Our Planet

    Big Bang p. 334-335
    Formation of stars. p. 334-335
    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 385-386
    Miller Experiment p. 336-337
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 336-339
    Geologic Column p. 343-345

    Evolution: The change in gene frequencies in a population over time.

    Biological Science, Fourth Edition
    William Keeton, James L. Gould
    Copyright 1986 by W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
    ISBN 0393-95385-8

    Part Four: The Genesis and Diversity of Organisms
    Chapter 37: The Origin and Early Evolution of Life

    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 998-999
    Miller Experiment p. 1000-1002
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 1002-1005
    Geologic Column p. 1012
    Peppered Moths p. 873
    Haeckel’s Drawings p. 798
    Evolution: Change in the genetic makeup of a population with time.

    Biology, Concepts and Applications, Third Edition
    Cecie Starr
    Copyright 1997 by Wadsworth Publishing Company
    ISBN 0-534-50440-X

    Part Four: Evolution and Diversity
    Chapter 17: The Origin and Evolution of Life

    Big Bang p. 262-263
    Formation of stars. p. 262-263
    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 263-264
    Miller Experiment p. 265
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 266-267
    Geologic Column p. 268-269
    Peppered Moths p. 228-229

    Evolution, Biological: Change within a line of descent over time. A population is evolving when some forms of a trait are becoming more or less common, relative to the other kinds of traits. The shift are evidence of changes in the relative abundances of alleles for that trait, as brought about by mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

    Human Biology, Fifth Edition
    Silvia S. Mader
    Copyright 1998 by McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
    ISBN 0-697-27821-2

    Part Seven: Human Evolution and Ecology
    Chapter 22: Evolution

    Formation of Earth from clouds of interstellar gas and dust p. 456
    Miller Experiment p. 388
    Abiogenesis from RNA, Coacervate droplets and Clay p. 460-461
    Geologic Column p. 464-465 (Only Pliocene to Holocene with hominoid fossils.)

    Evolution: Descent of organisms form common ancestors with the development of genetic and phenotypic changes over time that make them more suited to the local environment.

    By the way, one of my daughters teachers after learning that our church had passed out Kent Hovind DVD’s at the school that morning and not knowing who we were, told the class that what we had done was illegal and that the bible was full of errors.

    Yet, high schools in this town allow the local Islamic Center to send in a representative to talk to the kids about Islam once a year under the pretense of letting the kids learn about other religions and cultures. The first year they did this the local newspaper ran a large article detailing the talk, and gave the testimonies of two kids that converted to Islam that night at a meeting on school property to which the students were all invited sponsored by the school’s Islamic Club. After many editorials the newspaper no longer covers the event, but the practice still goes on.

    When the Islamic representative comes no teacher makes any comment about Islam being false or the Koran being wrong. What does this tell the kids? Maybe that everyone knows the bible is wrong but no one can (or dares) find fault with Islam.

    That’s why I ask people on this site if they would also object to Islam’s teachings of creation. Do you care that they are preaching in our schools? If not what are you fighting, false science, separation or church and state, or Christianity? If you only object to Christians teaching their beliefs and have never objected to the same teachings in other beliefs, you need to ask yourself why? who are you working for, what is your goal?

  252. CreationCD August 15, 2007 11:08 am Reply

    Paul Abramson,

    Good show last Friday on bible versions. 8/10/07
    http://24.180.11.251/AudioArchive/Abramson%20SMART%20hour/

    Below are my favorite websites on the bible version issue, where you can get free information without buying the book.

    Many free charts and information, available on the web.
    http://www.biblebelievers.com/
    William Grady’s book THE FINAL AUTHORITY read by the author in real player is on this site under Audio

    Here are some good sermons by Dr. Hyles and Dr. Al Lacy on the KJV
    http://www.baptist-city.com/king_james.htm
    by the way Dr. Hyles did not copyright his material:
    Listen to the sermon:
    Hanging Jesus In Effigy
    At the above link.
    Dr. Hyles books can be found at
    http://www.jackhyles.net/booklist.shtml

    Chuck Missler’s website as you brought up
    http://www.khouse.org/

    If you download a lot of real audio lectures and want to convert them to MP3s try the trial version of NCH Switch. Have all your files you want to convert ready.
    http://nch.com.au/switch/

    Endtimes,

    I would love to hear your favorite links.
    One nice thing about this blog site is that we’ve been able to share our resources.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: "Favorite links" would be a good program topic! Thank you. I will plan to do this. Also, as a side note, I have been doing the http://www.truthradio.com afternoon program for almost half a year now. At this time it appears that I will be ending the program at the end of August. It may go into "reruns" for a time, but it consumes a lot of energy each day, yet I do not believe that there are too many listeners. But I hope that for a few that it has been interesting. P.A. ]

  253. Samphire August 15, 2007 11:25 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes,

    I’ve been catching up on some early posts you made whilst I was away and came across your ill-humoured spat with LH concerning granite formation.

    I have to admit that I don’t quite get your point as I was unaware that this was a problem for old-earth proponents – please can you enlighten me on the difficulty. I had a quick look at the net this afternoon to try to discover the nature of the problem and came up with a report from 2000 at:

    http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin1/001206a.asp

    which may or may not be relevant. Despite the author being Wong I assume that the content is wight. :-) Wot say you?

    Regards
    Samphire

  254. DQ August 15, 2007 11:49 am Reply

    To the editor:
    You really don’t read anything I write, do you? I make a point, you rant for a while about the evils of evolutionists, I answer your rant, you ignore my rebuttal and rant on some more. Your latest is so internally contradictory that it’s pretty hard to keep up, but I will respond to what I can understand. After that, how about trying to PERSUADE and actually responding to what I write, instead of going on another winding, twisting, incoherent rant?

    The TEACHERS of evolution (unwittingly, at least usually) encourage dishonesty, murder, rape, stealing, etc. Beliefs lead to actions. If one believes that “God does not see” their actions – this encourages some behaviors over others.
    Ah, I see. So what you’re saying is that if it were not for the fact that you think god is watching you, you would be a thieving, raping, murderer. Fortunately, I am able to refrain from harming people all on my own. So your hypothesis is down the toilet, since I believe in evolution and I have never stolen, killed, or raped anyone, nor have I ever encouraged anyone to do these things, nor has anybody who ever taught me about evolution told me to do these things.

    Question- do you believe that slavery is wrong? Why? God is certainly all for it.** If you believe that slavery is wrong, you came to that conclusion without the help of the bible. Perhaps this will help you see how someone can develop their own morals without the help of the babblings of some bronze-age goat herders.

    Note that it is the “culture of life” folks who are usually for capital punishment, but the “culture of death” folks are usually against capital punishment. Interesting contrast? Hypocritical?
    It’s marginally interesting but not hypocritical. More than anything, I’d say that “culture of life” and “culture of death” are poor labels, used in an attempt to simplify what is a very complex tangle of issues. It’s not hypocritical to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Those are two completely different issues. I think it’s absolutely bust-a-gut hilarious that people like you make such a big deal over the “contrast.” The only reason you even have to bring it up is because YOU have assigned labels to people that don’t really fit. You’ve assigned yourself the label of “culture of life” even though you aren’t always for life, and you assign your enemies the label “culture of death” even though they aren’t always for death. You do this in an attempt to propagandize the issues and play on emotions, because you know that if you actually have a debate on ideas you will lose. So you smear your enemies with the word “death” and try to look pure yourself with the word “life,” and then you have to twist and turn to explain why you’re the “culture of life” when you’re not for all life. Myself, I don’t worry about those moronic labels because they’re not my labels. You’re anti-abortion, pro-death penalty. Good for you. That’s what I’ll call you. Nothing wrong with that. Some people are anti-abortion, anti-death penalty. That’s what I’ll call them. Good for them. Your weak attempts to paint everyone with a broad brush and put them into one of two categories that you made up ignores the enormous diversity of opinion out there.

    Terri Shaivo. Your arguments on her make absolutely no sense. First you say that we belong to god, and if he wants us to die that is his right, and he can take us whenever he wants. God struck down Terri Shaivo with a deadly disease. If not for the fast and skillful intervention of medical professionals, she would have certainly died in 1991 or whenever it was. God did that to her. The medical professionals then “played god” by keeping her alive for all those years. You say that TS was “put to death.” This is not true. The doctors stopped keeping her alive. If god had wanted her to live, she would have lived. Don’t you believe this? Surely god is powerful enough to have kept her alive if he wanted to, right? Isn’t her death evidence that he wanted her dead? He’s the one that struck her down in the first place, and he’s the one that allowed her to die. That’s why your argument makes no sense. Why was Terri “put to death,” but the murder of lots of children in the bible is just god “tilling under a bad crop”? We don’t need a double standard here- one standard will do just fine.

    Further, your whole “innocent” vs “guilty” argument falls apart too. You just finished justifying god’s murder of innocent children and pregnant women.

    Hosea 13:16: “Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

    So what’s your defense of this? You are now on record as being opposed to killing the innocent. Weren’t those infants in Samaria innocent? Had infants rebelled against their god? Had the unborn children rebelled? Or were the innocent killed to punish the guilty? Can you defend this? You say that killing the innocent is wrong. Do you really believe that killing the innocent is wrong? If you do, you will condemn god for this brutal outrage. If you defend this, then all of your arguments about killing the innocent, unborn, and Terri Shaivo are completely lost. You will have been revealed to be the moral relativist, as I pointed out earlier and you ignored. You will be arguing against killing the innocent in one breath, and defending the slaughter of innocents in the next. That is the definition of moral relativism. Here is the definition of moral absolutism: killing infants, pregnant women, and unborn babies is wrong. That’s my position. Will you join me in this position? I believe it is a moral position to take. If you defend god’s actions here, you cannot also endorse my position without revealing yourself as a hypocrite.

    Does evolution teach/encourage one to commit adultery or not? …Shouldn’t one “spread their seed” as in “survival of the fittest” and all that?

    Not necessarily. There is more than one way to ensure the survival of your genes. Sticking around to protect your offspring until they are old enough to have children of their own is a way of ensuring your genes survive. After all, if you parent a whole bunch of kids with different partners and abandon them all, and they all die, you have not successfully passed on your genes.

    Again, please notice that I have specifically addressed many of your points. I ask that you please do the same.

    **To head off the inevitable, baffling defense always put up for slavery by christians, who for some reason think that if they can show that the Israelite brand of slavery was somehow “better” than the slavery practiced in the American South, that will make the Israelite brand of slavery “OK,” I offer these verses:

    Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”

    Exodus 21:20-21: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

    So, god is in favor of a brand of slavery where you can make people slaves for life, enslave their children, and pass them on to your heirs. Also, you get to beat them so severely that they are unconscious for two days. If you think this is wrong, you obtained your morals from some source other than the bible.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:
    So, you write "but, but the God of your Bible is UNFAIR". I reply, "deal with it; He's the Owner". You respond, "but God is UNFAIR". I reply again, "Get used to the idea that we (humans) are not at the center of attention".

    Do a Bible word search on "God love" & "Lord love" and compare the count of the verses against "God fear" & "Lord fear". We are specifically told to "Fear God and keep His commandments." Modern Christianity has gotten off balance with this "God is luf, luf, luf (love)" stuff. Consequently, Richard Dawkins and others have been able to capitalize on this errant theology. You use the same verses to show that ... "But God is UNFAIR!"

    Jesus referred to humans on occasions in terms of a "flock" or "flocks". His parables sometimes used crops to reference groups of humans. That is the way it is. Your soul is owned; this planet is owned. We are more important than birds (Matthew 10:29-31), but we are most certainly NOT at the center of attention.

    Concerning slavery, do you think that there is no slavery in the world today? Or do you rather admit that there are more slaves in the world today than at any time in prior human history? What is the best way to steal from another? Once, or daily for the rest of the person's life? It is a part of the human condition, even before the Flood! Or else Noah (when only 8 persons were on the Earth) would not have been able to claim (Gen. 9:25) this against Canaan. He had to have known what slavery was, i.e. some pre-Flood persons as well were slaves. How tragic! But getting back to the point, setting down rules for handling slavery makes sense then, doesn't it? Or would you rather that masters could do as they pleased? P.A. ]

  255. Timothy Fellows August 15, 2007 11:55 am Reply

    Dear Learned Hand,

    There’s no way I can read and reply to all these, and I’m still trying to figure out these blogs.

    You asked about the subject of a state marriage license contrasted with the traditional marriage covenant. A large article can be written on this one subject alone, and I don’t think this is the place, but if you visit our website at truereligionworks.com under “Letters” you will find this kind of information.

    Let me summarize and say that the ordinance of marriage predates any and every government that has every existed. Before there was a USA, people were getting married. Marriage is a Divine Institution and directly related to the church. It is also a legally-binding institution recognized by the courts, because it involves oaths or promises in front of many witnesses, with signatures and testimony. My marriage is recognized by this country, and some states prefer covenant marriages.

    “What God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.”

    The increase in divorces today is directly related to the cheapness of a government marriage — what the government joins together, the government can disannul. However, they can’t disannul my marriage, because I didn’t go to them to pay for a permit to get married after getting required blood work from a government-approved doctor. One lawyer told some people that my marriage would actually be more difficult to disolve (divorce), because I don’t have a state marriage liscense. Imagine that! By the way, Dr. Hovind asked me to bring this subject up on this blog, the last time I visited him on Saturday, Aug. 11.

    To the other person who asked about moss growing on Bunyan’s cell mates eye brows (or it could have been eyelids) — I’m going to have to find the reference, but this is nothing out of the ordinary, you ought to read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to see what great persecutions people have endured throughout history. See some of them at — truereligionworks.com — go to “calendar”.

    Y’all don’t get bogged down in all these blogs,

    Timothy Fellows

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  256. JohnLake August 15, 2007 2:00 pm Reply

    Three Crosses
    Said this on August 15th, 2007 at 1:30am:

    To John Lake:
    capital G little me it’s literature i wrote it.

    Three Crosses,

    Sorry, you are correct, you are free to use capitalization as you see fit. Had I known that you were exercising your creative literary license, I would have moved on to the next post without a reply.

    So, is “because according to the “truth” and “law” it is one nation under God!” part of your creative use of literature? Are the “truth” and “law” you wrote about a creative product of your literary mind? What about “it is one nation under God!”? Is this your literary work, as well?

    I did look around, but could not find where there is a “truth” or “law” that would call for a lower case letter “A” in the word America in accordance to “one nation under God!” There is no mention of any “truth”, “law”, “america” or exceptions for “one nation under God!” in the rules of English grammar.

    “…one Nation under God” is mentioned in US code as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, but no mention of the lower case “A”. By the way, the history of “under God” is pretty interesting, it includes Abraham Lincoln, The Knights of Columbus, a Scottish Presbyterian minister and President Eisenhower.

    I could find no references in US code or the US Constitution to “God” as our preferred, elected or chosen deity for our “nation” to be “under”.

    So TC, can you cite the source for your assertion?

    Because without factual information, we would have to categorize your literary contribution to this site as fiction or fantasy…

    Nice poem, though.

    JohnLake

  257. EndTimes August 15, 2007 3:39 pm Reply

    Dear darling,

    OK, 238 “Beneficial” mutations out of 40,000,000 total mutations. Please show me where I can get the list of the mutations that are beneficial and the 39,999,762 neutral or detrimental mutations. Please specify so we can look at the data objectively. Thank you.

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  258. Samphire August 15, 2007 4:03 pm Reply

    “[EDITOR’S NOTE: Please NOT SO LONG in replies! We had the problem previously of the Creation v. Evolution debate taking over the blog. The primary purpose of this blog was/is to relate news about Dr. & Mrs. Hovind, and the CSE ministry."

    No, it isn't, Paul. If it were then there would be no posting other than that by Kent, his family or you. You love it when your fellow creationists post long and tedious cut'n'paste articles but when we rationalists take them apart piece by piece - necessarily at some length - you can't stand the heat.

    I must protest your slanderous remarks regarding George McCready Price. He is a great man.

    Is or was? The science says neither.

    "I have several of his books. Someday I would like to scan in and put on-line his “Common-Sense Geology” (239 pages) of 1946. I have pulled it off the shelf and placed it in front of me as I type this.

    So no "common-sense geology" has been carried out in the last 80 years? Every subsequent study which disproves Price is rubbish? What did he have to say on the subject of radiometric dating?

    "Creation theory, as a theory based on science (unlike some others), does not have to be revised every couple of years like the evolutionists must do"

    Hang on - we were talking about geology. Are you suggesting that no new geological discoveries have been made since GMP wrote his book 80 years ago? If so, should we shut down all the university geology departments?

    "Their consensus keeps changing, and then the texts must be rewritten. Science is based on observable evidence and real data...

    Errrr - well done, you are starting to get the picture.

    "evolution is based upon the consensus of its priests, who give the “correct interpretation” of the tea leaves … or bones and such, in their particular case."

    Now you have lost it again. Geology was the subject.

    "Priests deal in “correct interpretations” and such."

    That's two "and such" in a row. Are you losing the power of expression?

    "Allow for alternate interpretations, please. Let’s do science; separate the evidence from the possible interpretations.".

    So a creationist scientist is a scientist but a non-creationist scientist is a "priest"?

    Discover Magazine states (Sept. 2003; vol. 24, no. 9, pg. 33) “The way human evolutionary studies are going these days, any article on the subject written more than a few months ago probably contains outdated information.”.

    Hey, hold on back there. Now you are complaining that science is going too fast for them darned slow creationists. How's the seven year-old RATE project going, by the way? How long does it take to re-invent the wheel?

    "The Scientific Mathematician of the universe built-in complexity. Corn is corn, as I previously stated."

    Not until you define it - and you haven't done so. Please re-read what Lagomorph wrote.

    "Now the genome does contain a variety of possible combinations. -Great! "

    Does it? I don't think so.

    "Further evidence of wise initial design."

    Not really. Mankind has had to do a lot of work to remove the deficiencies of the design. But perhaps that was the Original Intention.

    "Price’s discussion from 1925 was/is accurate (though not as complete as current scientific research), correct? Each KIND of life will reproduce within its KIND.".

    So according to you a male and female horse will produce a zebra? The ToE is not so loose in its defintion. It predicts that the male and female of a species will only reproduce a member of the same species.

    "The first automobiles did not have headlights nor windshield wipers. These were added later. Did their addition, allowing for driving at night and in the rain give them lower or greater complexity? The more built-in complexity, the stronger the evidence points to design for that thing."

    Has someone suggested that American cars self-replicate? I never knew.

    “Natural Selection” is a quality control process. Survival of the fittest, yes."

    If "quality" is a measure of survival and the ability to reproduce potent offspring then yes.

    "But do not then make that leap of faith to some contrived “arrival of the fittest” belief, through a (quality control) process that instead preserves (not randomly with unlimited changes) the DNA - it is within built-in limits."

    I am afraid that was gibberish. DNA is "preserved" but, clones apart, the DNA of the child is never identical to the DNA of either parent. What evidence do you have that the development of the genome is limited?

    "Look at life! It is marvelous! God has designed in tremendous complexity. Look at the huge variations between types of dogs!!"

    Man's doing rather than God's - I doubt God would lay claim to a chihuahua. To a miniature Schnauza called Harry, maybe. Photographs on written application.

    "Have you become (not you personally, speaking to evolutionists in general) so spiritually dead inside that you cannot call out with admiration to our Maker after looking at a cell through a microscope, or observing budding fruit trees"

    Forgetting the "Maker" bit, what do you think drives scientists on to discover more about the universe? If it is so wonderful to you, Paul, why have you not taken up science?

    "or a running deer!?"

    That's a bit more tricky. How about if it has cost you $14,000 to build a fence to keep the damn things from eating your wife's roses?

    "SHORTER replies, please. Creationists cannot go back to darkness. Your evolutionary pseudo-science and leaps of faith on “arrival of the fittest” will not convince us. We have looked at both sides. Please keep your replies shorter … or I may have to edit them down for length. sorry. P.A. ]“

    And yours.

    “Arrival” of the fittest?

  259. Samphire August 15, 2007 4:22 pm Reply

    Rock said way back on Aug 6th: “I only know of one book containing scientific claims that has never had to be revised: The Holy Bible.”

    Try http://www.biblegateway.com to discover 24 different English versions alone. But I’m with you, Rock, if you believe the KJV is the best – if not the most accurate – in its translation of the many inaccurate copies of the original. At least, it has poetry on its side.

    “Modern science like modern medicine would use you, abuse you and leave you to die a horrible death.”

    I suggest you ask the good Dr.Endtimes to explain to you how and why average life expectancy has almost doubled over the last 150 years. Are you suggesting that palliative relief is less than it was, say, 100 years ago?

    “Modern science claims to know the answers with absolute authority”

    That’s news to me and science. An example, please.

    “Every one of evolution’s claims to fact has either been proven nonsense”

    An example, please. Even Kent admits that there has been a huge amount of evolution since Noah took off his sou’wester and jumped down from the Ark: indeed, an enormous amount greater than any evolutionist would admit to. Presumably, you do not agree with Kent’s views.

    “or will be soon.”

    How do you know – are you clairvoyant?

    “I choose the foundation that still hasn’t been proven wrong: Young Earth Creation.

    What proof would you require? Kent, when asked on his radio show “what proof would you require to show the truth of the ToE?” retorted “When a dawg gives birth to a non-dawg” thus proving to the world that he had not the faintest idea of what the theory of evolution was about. I suspect that you are in the same boat. So prove me wrong.

  260. Rock Prevaricator August 15, 2007 4:45 pm Reply

    Three Crosses…

    I don’t know what to say about your “Evolution condensed” bit.

    All I can say is that my son and I were nearly rolling on the floor in laughter. That was the funniest thing I’ve read in here.

    Kudos.

    Unfortunately it is rather rare to see humor in here.

    Rock

  261. BiC August 15, 2007 4:54 pm Reply

    Hi everyone. My view on the question whether God knew that Adam and Eve would sin…; God obviously knew that and had a plan already in place for that: Eph 1:4 “He hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love”.

  262. BiC August 15, 2007 5:09 pm Reply

    I have only very recently listened to Dr Hovind’s ceminars. It made my faith grow so much and I am very grateful for that. So much uncertainties were clarified by that. I have much respect for him and believe that it is all revelation from God. I am grieved to learn that he is in prison and pray that God will make a way for him out of this mess. Ro 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose”. I believe it is Gods purpose that put him there and He will take him out of it, unharmed. God will never put you in a situation and not take you through it. Be strong and bold Dr Hovind… there will be an end to this!!

  263. EndTimes August 15, 2007 7:03 pm Reply

    For those that continue to believe that evolution is NOT A RANDOM process, let me turn you to one of the greatest population geneticists and his definition of evolution. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, but perhaps you should listen to your own champions:

    “Evolution is a stochastic process of change in gene frequencies in natural populations.”

    Motoo Kimura

    http://books.google.com/books?id=MIa2m0fi0F0C&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=stochastic+natural+selection&source=web&ots=91LuFqJ_MC&sig=udgzP_AQSj3Xldd79jooXIIIUvw#PPR6,M1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoo_Kimura

    Stochastic, from the Greek “stochos” or “aim, guess”, means of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture and randomness. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state does not fully determine its next state.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic

    A stochastic process, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart of a deterministic process (or deterministic system) considered in probability theory. Instead of dealing only with one possible ‘reality’ of how the process might evolve under time (as it is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are more possibilities the process might go to, but some paths are more probable and others less.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  264. EndTimes August 15, 2007 7:22 pm Reply

    For those that state evolutionist do not use terms of higher intelligence in their mechanisms of evolution that are most often associated with conscious thought, I offer this quotation from a science journal article to consider. Can bacteria actually “anticipate” anything? This is the type of language the creeps into many such articles. Three Crosses is correct that there are “magical” and “conscience thoughts” attributed to what in reality are random mechanisms. When I come across more, I will list them:

    “By using stochastic mechanisms to sample several distinct phenotypes, the bacteria are able to anticipate and take advantage of sudden changes in their environment.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15166174&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

    an•tic•i•pate ( n-t s -p t )
    v. an•tic•i•pat•ed, an•tic•i•pat•ing, an•tic•i•pates
    v.tr.
    1. To feel or realize beforehand; foresee: hadn’t anticipated the crowds at the zoo.
    2. To look forward to, especially with pleasure; expect: anticipated a pleasant hike in the country.
    3. To deal with beforehand; act so as to mitigate, nullify, or prevent: anticipated the storm by boarding up the windows. See Synonyms at expect.
    4. To cause to happen in advance; accelerate.
    5. To use in advance, as income not yet available.
    6. To pay (a debt) before it is due.
    v.intr.
    To think, speak, or write about a matter in advance.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anticipate

    Huhhh, bacteria can predict the future as they anticipate environmental changes by “stochastic mechanisms? I quess they must have better weathermen than we do. Do they know about global warming as well?

    In kindness,

    Peter

    P.S. These folks are from MIT.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  265. Learned Hand August 15, 2007 7:26 pm Reply

    Quite a spate of responses. End Times, I think I’m going to have to let you have the last word as to most of your responses. Not only do I not have time to respond to everything, I couldn’t give a substantive response to each assertion in any event. The primary rhetorical advantage to creationism is that you can make it up as you go along, while us poor studious souls must marshal actual facts in response. Information is slower than imagination, which is why the Gish Gallop works so well.

    But I can’t let your central dishonesty go unchallenged. (Samphire, thank you for your remonstration. I’ll try to moderate my tone, but I’m not willing to call a lie anything but a lie.) End Times asserted, early on, that evolution is a “blind chance” process. This simply isn’t true. We’ve gone over the reasons why – even though mutation is, at the practical level, a random process, selection isn’t. That’s simple, basic math. ET simply can’t admit to error on this point, however. I think there is a simple explanation for that.

    Creationism is, by definition, a fiat philosophy; being bereft of evidence and a testable, falsifiable foundation, creationism proceeds on a “take my word for it” basis. Creationists don’t read the research, or perform experiments, or engage in the scientific method. They divine The Truth from their own preconceptions and biases, then expound that Truth to other creationists, who can be relied upon to be equally ignorant of the actual state of the scientific discipline being slandered. Fiat truths are vulnerable to the credibility of the proponent, however. The audience is less likely to take the proponent’s word at face value if he has been shown to be wrong in the past. This is one reason why creationists are almost always unwilling to admit even outrageous falsehoods (such as Mr. Hovind’s repeated claims on the nature of the speed of light, or that Lucy’s bones were found widely separated and in different strata). When the ideology’s entire basis is “trust me,” it’s hugely injurious to the cause for it to be shown to be untrustworthy.

    We can see that here in both Three Crosses and End Times. Consider Three Crosses’ statement that evolutionary theory teaches that genes think, and that individuals evolve through their force of will. An absolutely risible statement that it reflects either total ignorance of biology or a callous willingness to tell any lie to slander science. And yet, no creationist here was willing to say, “That’s not right.” (N.B., you don’t have to agree with science to be willing and able to accurately characterize its basic principles.) Similarly, End Times cannot admit that he initially misunderstood the analogy of coin flipping; he is compelled by his reliance on fiat assertions to protect his facial credibility at all costs, even if it requires him to put on a brave face and pray that no one notices how severely he miscomprehended the example. Nor can he admit that he misunderstood the reference on the Panda’s Thumb. Admitting that he made a serious error on any point would be counterproductive, because all that creationism has in its corner is the trust credulous people are willing to extend creationists who claim to be well informed, truthful and ethical people.

    Ironically, these exchanges put the ethics of creationists to the test. A cursory review of this thread shows that, when given a choice between a false but convenient statement and an awkward truth, the creationists will choose the former in every event. See, i.e., End Times’ futile and facile insistence that natural selection is a random process, which inspired this note. Here is a simple challenge – Rock Prevaricator has made an extremely elementary mistake about what the theory of evolution entails. Will the other creationists here correct his misstatement, or cultivate his ignorance? The one would be inconvenient, but honest. The other would be productive, but typically amoral.

    Of course, my arguments all rely on creationists being actually wrong. I assume that most, if not all, readers of this blog have already made up their mind on that score. If there are undecided people out there, I’ll repeat myself: you cannot trust a creationist to accurately explain science. If you want to know what evolutionary theory says, and what the evidence for it is, you simply cannot rely on people with compelling, controlling biases. Three Crosses and End Times have shown us that creationists simply don’t have the ethical fortitude to honestly approach science. Once again, I implore you to read a book. Don’t google excerpts, as End Times has – read the whole book. Better yet, read three books. Take a course. Expand your education, not merely your imagination.

    As a substantive critique on ET’s attempts to deceive his audience, a good place to start is http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lj14/PY1102Creationism.pdf. ET doesn’t seem to have read any of Mayr’s books; he’s presented some mined quotations which do not support his arguments. Natural selection is not a random process. (See the link above for a discussion of the types of randomness relevant to this issue, and a prescient explanation of ET’s misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of randomness in evolutionary theory.) Nor is ET’s carping about “genetic load” relevant. He is attempting to change the subject; the issue is not whether evolutionary theory is correct about natural selection, but whether ET has honestly described evolutionary theory. He has not, but for the reasons described above, he is loathe to admit that. He turns, instead, to vitriol and the Bible, arguing in essence that he must be right because he knows all the good Christian words. But does he behave like a Christian? See, again, his steady progression of dishonest statements and amoral approach to truth. You should know him by his fruit, and a careful study of the facts will show that his fruit is ignorance and deception.

  266. EndTimes August 15, 2007 7:42 pm Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 14th, 2007 at 1:19pm:

    Evolution predicts that genes will show patterns of descent, that rabbits will never be found in Precambrian rock, and that cows will never give birth to chickens. Prove those predictions wrong, and you disprove evolution.

    Interesting! Let’s take a look at this:

    Creation predicts that genes will show a pattern of descent with in a common Kind, that rabbits will never be found in foundation rocks, and that cows will never give birth to chickens. Yippee, we can stop debating since we agree now.

    Peter

    P.S. What is a kind you will ask? I like this which comes directly from the Bible, a Kind is family of organisms that are able to bring forth (reproduce, replicate) and that shows a pattern of common genes and proteins (common flesh) in those that no longer are able to bring forth due to various isolating mechanisms. Note that the Bible lists both bringing forth and of the same flesh as definitions of kinds. Lots of testable suppositions here folks. Further, the central dogma of biology is contained in the fact that the Bible makes statements such as “of all flesh” to indicate that there are qualities in all the tissues of all creatures that are central to “all flesh.” So why should we be surprised to find homologies between different species, and DNA and ribosomes and all the other necessary organelles that allow cells to be cells? Where is is written that God cannot use the same protein, or bone or blood cell types in two different creatures? Lastly, the similarity of the plants comes from the fact that the LORD tells Adam that the plants are for his meat. Thus, we should be able to find all of the same elements in plants as we do in animals since all creatures in the beginning were vegetarian and had to get the building blocks of life from there meat. Why is that such a surprise? None of these observations of similar structures prove that we all have descended from a common ancestor. Truly the best answer is a common designer.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  267. btodd August 16, 2007 8:13 am Reply

    THREE CROSSES WROTE: Odd that some believers of evolution actually believe conspiracies don’t exists END QUOTE

    No one has said that ‘conspiracies don’t exist’; you are simply putting words in other people’s mouths.

    What I, and hopefully other ‘evolutionists’ believe in, is what is supported by tangible facts. This website is a hotbed for belief in just about every unsubstantiated, paranoid claim that has been cast on human ears. From 9/11 Truth, to hidden cancer cures, moon landing hoaxes, tax protestation, ad infinitum. What is scary to me, and quite obvious, is that one conspiracy belief seems to lead to another, and another, and another….would you be honest enough to admit which conspiracies you believe in, and which ones you don’t? I think it would be interesting to find out.

    Here’s a list, if you want to give me a ‘yes or no’ as to whether you believe in these conspiracies:

    9/11 Truth
    Chemtrails
    Hidden Cancer Cures
    JFK Assassination
    OKC Bombing
    USS Cole bombing
    Holocaust Denial (I’m sure being a fundamentalist Christian should keep you safe from this one)
    Free energy machines being kept secret
    Engines that run on water, etc. being kept secret
    New World Order or One World Government
    Skull and Bones being a Satanic society
    Moon landing hoax
    Vaccinations
    IRS / Tax protestation
    Evolution
    UFOs being covered up

    If you want us evil evolutionists to accept your conspiracies, then produce some real facts to support them. I cannot disprove a negative, and as I have previously pointed out to Ekkman, once you accept these conspiracy theories as fact, I have no way of convincing you otherwise, because you have done so DESPITE the facts, not BECAUSE of them. I think this is a vastly PSYCHOLOGICAL issue, not a fact-based, realistic one.

    Anecdotes are not evidence. Appeals to motive are not evidence. And using laypersons to speculate about very complex topics in which they have no education or training is a joke (this is the crux of 9/11 Truth). As I pointed out to Ekkman previously, how many of you would accept medical advice or a surgery from someone who isn’t a doctor? That’s the equivalent of trusting someone like David Ray Griffin or Alex Jones to tell you about structural engineering or controlled demolitions.

    If it will make you feel better, I think Scientology is a cult and a conspiracy.

    Btodd

  268. DQ August 16, 2007 9:57 am Reply

    The editor writes: So, you write “but, but the God of your Bible is UNFAIR”. I reply, “deal with it; He’s the Owner”. You respond, “but God is UNFAIR”. I reply again, “Get used to the idea that we (humans) are not at the center of attention”.

    Actually, Paul, no, I never wrote “but, but the God of your Bible is UNFAIR.” I made specific claims, (one of which was NOT “god is unfair,” by the way), and made a number of points to back up my claims. You, in typical fashion, ignore my claims, ignore the points I made in support of my claims, make up something that I never said, attribute it to me, and hand-wave it away. What’s the problem, don’t you have any response to my actual points? I will try one more time, and lay it out as simply as possible:

    1. GOD IS NOT UNFAIR. (Hopefully this will take care of your favorite strawman).
    2. You have stated that killing the innocent and unborn babies is evil.
    3. God has ordered and approved of the killing of innocents and unborn babies.

    How can you reconcile this? God has acted in a way that you have defined as evil. Please respond do THIS CLAIM. Please do not make up something and say I said it.

    Concerning slavery, do you think that there is no slavery in the world today? Or do you rather admit that there are more slaves in the world today than at any time in prior human history? What is the best way to steal from another? Once, or daily for the rest of the person’s life? It is a part of the human condition, even before the Flood! Or else Noah (when only 8 persons were on the Earth) would not have been able to claim (Gen. 9:25) this against Canaan. He had to have known what slavery was, i.e. some pre-Flood persons as well were slaves. How tragic! But getting back to the point, setting down rules for handling slavery makes sense then, doesn’t it? Or would you rather that masters could do as they pleased? P.A. ]

    What I would prefer would have been god banning slavery. People ate pork long before the flood, right? God didn’t seem to have a problem banning that. It is part of the human condition to covet your neighbor’s wife, and people did this before the flood, and that didn’t stop god from banning it. I could go on and on with more examples. So your argument that if something is part of the human condition and existed before the flood, god should only regulate it and not ban it is false. Yes, everyone kept slaves at the time. God wrote the laws for the Israelites in order to set them apart from their neighbors. What better way to set them apart from their neighbors, and make them a shining example of god’s mercy, than to order them to set their slaves free? That would have been a great example to the world, but he didn’t do it.

    Your arguments are so silly. Whenever it is convenient you place restrictions on god. You argue that god couldn’t really ban slavery because it is “part of the human condition” and had been in place for a long time before he wrote the law. You sure have a pretty low opinion of the power of your all-powerful god. You don’t even think he had the ability to ban a horrible, barbaric custom, even though he was banning other customs left and right.

    You gotta believe me, Paul, it is sooo much better to be in my position than yours. I used to be like you, I knew all the standard defenses, I could defend the slaughter of children and slavery and all sorts of other atrocities. It was so intellectually dishonest, because I knew in the back of my head that killing children is always wrong, no matter what. I suspect you know this deep down as well. But now, I am free from my moral-crippling need to defend the indefensible. I can now make statements like this: “Slavery is wrong. Period. Killing children is wrong. Period.” You cannot make these statements, because to do so is to admit that your invisible sky-pixie is not as perfect as you have to believe. You end up in these arguments where you have to tread very lightly around the issue of slavery and child murder, not being able to actually state unequivocally that they are wrong, having to twist and torture words and say things just so, so as not to admit what you really know but are terrified to acknowledge.

  269. Ganf August 16, 2007 10:36 am Reply

    Back on August 9th, I asked this question…

    “One question… was Eve and Adam’s original sin of disobedience of God’s command avoidable or unavoidable?”

    There have been a couple of replies, but they sort of missed the point I was after. So let me try again.

    Is there any scriptural evidence of what would have transpired had Adam and Eve not disobeyed God and remained sinless? The consequences, from a logical perspective, would be immense, as A&E and their descendants were fruitfully multiplying and free from Death.

    Assuming:
    Each pair produced 2 offspring per generation
    Each generation was 20 years
    Each pair of offspring was 1 female and 1 male
    Each pair did not die and continued to reproduce

    Then by the 300th generation, the earth’s population would have grown to 6.4 x 10^60 people

    If one also uses the same calcs for rodents, with multiple generations per year, for 6000 years, the results would cover the world in mice thousands of feet thick.

    It would logically seem that Original Sin and the Curse of Death was absolutely necessary. Of course perhaps an Abstinence Only Sex Education program would have abated the population growth, but that would have gone against the imperative to be “fruitful and multiply”.

    Does that help clarify my original question?

    Michael

  270. Rock Prevaricator August 16, 2007 10:57 am Reply

    EndTimes
    Said this on August 15th, 2007 at 7:42pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    darling
    Said this on August 14th, 2007 at 1:19pm:

    Evolution predicts that genes will show patterns of descent, that rabbits will never be found in Precambrian rock, and that cows will never give birth to chickens. Prove those predictions wrong, and you disprove evolution.

    Interesting! Let’s take a look at this:

    Creation predicts that genes will show a pattern of descent with in a common Kind, that rabbits will never be found in foundation rocks, and that cows will never give birth to chickens. Yippee, we can stop debating since we agree now.

    Peter

    P.S. What is a kind you will ask? I like this which comes directly from the Bible, a Kind is family of organisms that are able to bring forth (reproduce, replicate) and that shows a pattern of common genes and proteins (common flesh) in those that no longer are able to bring forth due to various isolating mechanisms. Note that the Bible lists both bringing forth and of the same flesh as definitions of kinds. Lots of testable suppositions here folks. Further, the central dogma of biology is contained in the fact that the Bible makes statements such as “of all flesh” to indicate that there are qualities in all the tissues of all creatures that are central to “all flesh.” So why should we be surprised to find homologies between different species, and DNA and ribosomes and all the other necessary organelles that allow cells to be cells? Where is is written that God cannot use the same protein, or bone or blood cell types in two different creatures? Lastly, the similarity of the plants comes from the fact that the LORD tells Adam that the plants are for his meat. Thus, we should be able to find all of the same elements in plants as we do in animals since all creatures in the beginning were vegetarian and had to get the building blocks of life from there meat. Why is that such a surprise? None of these observations of similar structures prove that we all have descended from a common ancestor. Truly the best answer is a common designer.

    - – - – -

    What a delightfully succinct post! Too bad it falls upon deaf ears.

    Good job nevertheless.

    Rock

  271. Samphire August 16, 2007 11:05 am Reply

    Hi Paul,

    Thanks for reply. You seemed in your earlier post to be pro-death penalty and I continue to assume you are. You failed to answer my question as to whether or not you would be prepared to pull the trapdoor lever. If not, then it is hypocrisy on your part to support the death penalty. I am well aware of the story of the woman taken in adultery and Jesus’s attitude towards her (as no observer remained other than the woman and Jesus I wonder who reported the story?). Surely, a Christian should follow the example of Christ?

    The ToE does not teach human morality any more than does the Theory of Gravity, the Quantum Theory or any other theory of natural science. The value of an individual human life is a human construct and not a reflection of how matter and energy act. If people wish to misuse science for their own selfish purposes they will do so just as many (such as the disreputable “Dr” Morris Cerullo) misuse religion.

    Before the ToE, in Victorian England we had wide spread prostitution and children working down the mines and crawling up chimneys. Post the publication of the ToE, prostitution has fallen and now children cannot even get to do a paper round let alone a job with the Coal Board. Neither phenomenon has any connection with the Theory of Evolution.

    By the way, you said on last Wednesday’s broadcast that creationists tell you that the Thomas Heinze book The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution “is the best small book we’ve got.”. That’s certainly true. Well, what dreadful bad luck.

  272. Samphire August 16, 2007 11:08 am Reply

    CD wrote: “I’m sure you would not be willing to concede the point (if it has nothing to do with evolution after all). Just for the sake of argument we’ll say that God did create the world 6,000 years ago and many forms of plants and animals at that time, and get on with the debate. Now, tell me your theory again.“.

    I, for one, am happy to concede the possibility if you, for your part, are willing to concede that God must be a fraud for making the Universe look as though it is 15 billion (not million) years old and that the Earth and Solar System look to be about 4.5 billion years old.

    I, though, am not willing to concede that God is a fraud.

    But assuming God is a fraud and evolution does not happen how is it that animals such as crocs, lions, wolves, spiders, and nearly all fish evolved so quickly after the fall to become meat eaters?

    Whoops – there is a bit of an anomaly here. Endtimes says that animals evolved from plant-eating to meat-eating but you say they didn’t as evolution doesn’t happen. Perhaps it should be you rather than me who is arguing with the good Doctor.

    Also, what about mitochondrial Eve who, it is calculated, lived about 140,000 years ago. As Adam’s girlfriend Eve was only born 6000 years ago have you any solution for the problem?

  273. Three Crosses August 16, 2007 11:38 am Reply

    First To Samphire: We keep rehashing most of the points you made but I’ll address this statement for now.
    “We do actually – just not the “big conspiracies” such as the JFK assassination or 911.”

    I guess you don’t understand that when people are talking about 9/11, they mean when Osama allegedly “CONSPIRED” with Saudi and Egyptian nationals to take over jet airliners with box knives and fly them into the World Trade center. It was all over the news for months I’m surprised you missed it.

    To Self proclaimed Learned Hand: I’m sorry but “evolution” doesn’t mean “science” no matter how many times you repeat it. If your teachers are telling you this they are lying. Maybe a dictionary would be in order for the defense of your religion. If you want to learn about science start with a dictionary so that you at least know what the word means. You will receive a much better argument on this website on the side of evolution than you ever will in a classroom.
    At our local college the chemistry professor was dismissed for believing creation 17 years of study, research, working as a scientist, and teaching made it obvious.

    To John Lake you said “So TC, can you cite the source for your assertion?”
    A very good argument. I admit I don’t think grammar means as much to me as it does to you. A court of law decided that “under God” was unconstitutional and another court overturned it just on public opinion. I guess you could interpret that however you want. One might be able to argue that this is because we live in a “mob/media rules democracy/oligarchy” instead of the “Republic/rule of law” government we were founded as. So the “law” has found it correct and incorrect. Lawyers can look forward to making money off arguing about that for some time to come. As to whether or not the “truth” says it. Some of us already know and some of us will know on judgement day. Since you are looking for a reason not to like what I write. Do I take that to mean you have an open mind or a closed one?

    Someone made the quote “minds are like parachutes they only work if they’re open”
    After that several people came back and made several changes. Here’s my addition “sometimes they don’t work at all”.

    Thanks to JohnLake for his reminder about grammar and literature.

    Thanks to Samphire for helping me make the conspiracy point.

    May God bless you with clarity of sight!

    three crosses

  274. ccherrett August 16, 2007 1:26 pm Reply

    Samphire,

    Ah you have come out to play again! I was thinking we should setup a phone debate with you and another creation speaker. When would be good for you?

    I was thinking Eric Hovind or possible one of my Canadian friends. We could then post the debate online.

    Will this work for you?

    Chris Cherrett

  275. DQ August 16, 2007 1:29 pm Reply

    Ganf-
    If not necessary, I’d say it was inevitable. Adam and Eve did not know the difference between right and wrong prior to eating the fruit. Remember, it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they ate from. The serpent (nowhere, by the way, does it say that it was Lucifer, as has been claimed on this blog) was telling Eve the truth when he told her that if she ate from the tree she would know the difference between right and wrong. After A&E eat the fruit, god comments that “behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

    So it is clear that Adam and Eve did not know the difference between right and wrong prior to eating the fruit, turning the Garden of Eden into a setup. How could you possibly expect people who have no idea of the difference between right and wrong to not screw up somehow?

    My question is where is the tree of life and the flaming sword guarding it? Surely our troops, in their search for the WMDs, should have come across this flaming sword by now. It is not really logical to think that the tree of life has died, that wouldn’t make much sense, now would it, so it must still be there. Where then is the flaming sword? Surely our satellites could detect such a thing, if it were there.

    Or perhaps the whole thing is merely a myth.

  276. darling August 16, 2007 1:35 pm Reply

    EndTimes Said this on August 15th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

    “OK, 238 “Beneficial” mutations out of 40,000,000 total mutations. Please show me where I can get the list of the mutations that are beneficial and the 39,999,762 neutral or detrimental mutations.

    Oddly enough, the answer is at the very link you declared “devoid of true substance.”
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0701705104v1
    (The original link also gives a couple more papers reaching much the same conclusion.)

    Having said all that I’m still not sure where you’re getting your 40,000,000 number. Other than by comparing humans with chimps which, again, is a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the issue.

    “Creation predicts that genes will show a pattern of descent with in a common Kind, that rabbits will never be found in foundation rocks, and that cows will never give birth to chickens.”

    Umm… no it doesn’t. Creation doesn’t predict much of anything, really.

    “Yippee, we can stop debating since we agree now.”

    Finding any one of those things, or something similar, would disprove creation?

    If so, this line of discussion would be fascinating. Maybe we could talk about Haldane’s Dilemma and its implications for (young earth) creation.

    “a Kind is family of organisms that are able to bring forth and that shows a pattern of common genes and proteins in those that no longer are able to bring forth due to various isolating mechanisms… Lots of testable suppositions here folks.”

    So far, so good: humans and chimps can be considered the same “kind” by that definition. I suspect you may disagree.

    If you do, we’re going to need to refine that definition. What makes a “kind” not a “kind,” exactly?

    “Where is is written that God cannot use the same protein, or bone or blood cell types in two different creatures?”

    Has anyone said he couldn’t?

    On the other hand, God could have used completely different proteins, bones or blood cell types in two different creatures.

    If he did, and we found it – just once out of the millions of different species – evolution would be dead in the water.

    “Truly the best answer is a common designer.”

    A common designer who modifies genes to show patterns of descent?

  277. amigas August 16, 2007 4:10 pm Reply

    Been away from this blog for a month or so just trying to catch up.

    DQ
    Said this on August 16th, 2007 at 9:57am:

    1. GOD IS NOT UNFAIR. (Hopefully this will take care of your favorite strawman).
    2. You have stated that killing the innocent and unborn babies is evil.
    3. God has ordered and approved of the killing of innocents and unborn babies.
    How can you reconcile this? God has acted in a way that you have defined as evil. Please respond do THIS CLAIM. Please do not make up something and say I said it.

    =======
    I can not totally reconcile but maybe I can shed a little light on the subject.

    It is true that God told the Israelites to kill all of the enemy including women and children, but this was a time and act of war somewhat like when we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and many “innocent” were killed but in the long run “I believe” many more were saved than killed. We have a finite mind trying to understand an infinite God and therefore will always fall extremely short of full understanding. It could possibly be that God new what would happen in the long run and you see if you study scripture you will find that much of the persecution of the Israelites came from the decendents of those who were not killed according to the instructions of God. Admittedly, I see from the perspective that God is sovereign and the Bible is correct in all areas.

    Concerning slavery, the Bible teaches how to treat slaves if you own one not necessarily that you should own one. I know that slavery as in early American history was criminal and horrible in every way, but slavery in the Bible is in many ways similar to what we do today with debt and employment.

    Gotta go more later

    Gene Schmeling

  278. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 16, 2007 4:19 pm Reply

    btodd, I was certainly interested in the way and what type of list it was you compiled here. You know I don’t talk for CSE in any capacity so I thought I would have a go at this just for fun.

    [9/11 Truth]
    I believe WTC 7 at the very least must have had some sort of explosive devices placed within in to cause it to implode and collapse at nearly free fall speed. I also do not believe that a boeing 757 collided with the pentagon

    [Chemtrails]
    I know nothing about this one but there are some interesting testimonies of people slightly involved with white unmarked planes. And there are photos of what do not appear to be simply high altitude vapor trails

    [Hidden Cancer Cures]
    the work of Dr. Robert C Beck, Dr Sherrill Sellman, Dr. Ernst Krebs, Dr. Joel Wallach, Dr.Jonathan Lee, Dr Mercola is all too good to ignore. Alternative treatments are underreported and underinvestigated. This is to say the least.

    [JFK Assassination]
    I believe the Warren Report is gravely deficient. I do not believe that Oswell acted alone or that it is impossible that it was not one or two others – and not him at all. JFK seems to have wanted to do three things that troubled people around him. 1. issue non federal reserve bank notes ie. non debt encumbered treasury notes 2. disband or break up the CIA into different departments or bring them under separated/ different administrative offices. 3. finish the Vietnam war earlier than war mongers wanted it to be ended.

    [OKC Bombing]
    at the time of the event there are/were new reports from the ground, ie. local covering news agencies reporting in that there were other explosive devices being found in or around the building. these reports seem to have been quashed somehow soon after, or did not make it to the national broadcast. also the physics of an explosive device being out on the street [non coupled] and causing the sort of footprint of or signature of damage that was caused in problematic – to say the least.

    [ USS Cole bombing]
    didn’t the CIA train and fund Osama Bin Laden at one stage? did they ever stop funding him and directing him? is he alive?

    [ Holocaust Denial (I’m sure being a fundamentalist Christian should keep you safe from this one)]
    maybe numbers killed have been greatly exaggerated for political leverage? I have only seen one single interview with david irving but it seems there is evidence that “one?” -at least – Auschwitz gas chamber was built after the war for publicity/ memorial purposes. [now does that mean that there had been one there earlier and that nazi’s had destroyed it like a lot of other stuff when they knew that the war was a lost cause?] the simple truth of whether or not a building was “re-created” after the war as a memorial should not be a matter for such vitriol in the writing of actual history. if the building was “re-built” and people cannot admit to that, it makes one wonder if they couldn’t completely invent stories of things that did not happen at all.

    [ Free energy machines being kept secret]
    what if the zero point energy really is 10^95 ergs per square centre meter. All of the observed energy for the entire universe through its recorded history could be explained by the conversion/ destruction of just a few cm^2 of space. who stands to politically or financially gain from any form of tapping the most miniscule amounts of that energy and that system then being freely available to the general public?

    [Engines that run on water, etc. being kept secret]
    I have a friend – Les Banki – actually working on motors with this. at the very least fine water particles make for a really excellent catalyst. Browns gas has some fascinating properties. electrolytics might be amazingly more efficient with the different designs of plates /spacing that they are trialing. resonance/ oscillation effects might have a profound effect. there is a consensus among people working with the equipment that others elsewhere in the world have cracked secrets about this but are literally afraid to talk about it.

    [ New World Order or One World Government]
    don’t you have any questions for david rockefeller or henry kissinger or the sweet homely folks who attend Bilderberg meetings. why have meetings if you have no agenda?

    [ Skull and Bones being a Satanic society]
    I don’t know if any of it is satanic. – reportedly the candidate kisses a shoe of the pope. I find that interesting. a lot of how the freemason’s organize a meeting is fascinating, just the floor plan and office stations/ layout speaks of underlying natural order. it almost look organically “cellular”. as if someone had been inspired by something?

    [Moon landing hoax]
    until only recently I thought this one was a complete furfie. then I finally took a night off to watch one doco. I now have no doubt that there were mock up/ simulation or simultation centres good enough to produce photos/ video which could be used for publicity which one no-one untrained to look would tell the difference about. what really went to the moon what did not is not was not answered in the feature.

    [Vaccinations]
    read a serious piece of writing on MMR and autism? what are the preservatives? read some serious writings on cot death.
    one of my own children was immunized against Hepatitis B at the hospital soon after birth. I wasn’t there with the mother to talk her through this when the vaccine was offered “for free”. If I have to explain the insanity of vaccinating all under two year old/ new born to hep B I seriously doubt your ability to reason through any subject matter. it is [EDITED] insane. [sorry Peter - there is a time for swearing]

    [IRS / Tax protestation]
    To this date I don’t see how or why the IRS could not be construed as a private debt collection agency for a privately owned bank. aka. Federal Reserve Bank. All IRS taxes are to pay off the interest on a loan [so I’m informed]- and not the principle? Why borrow when you could print/ coin your own debt free sovereign fiat currency as the constitution plainly suggests. the constitution also alludes to an apportioned tax. ie. that gets divided up and spent by the the states on their people or state [directly]. It doesn’t look to me like that is what IRS is doing with money it taxes.

    [ Evolution]
    this blog wasn’t going to spend so much time on this – but if you and/or Juridical darling really believe that non intelligently specifically directed ionizing radiation from [for example] the decay of uranium 238 isotopes could improve the information content of a strand of DNA to create a beneficial mutation and that said newly created point variations within the genome could successfully out replicate all of the members of the species in that generation to leave a permanent new characteristic in the species – I cannot help you. Dr Lee Spetner’s book will not help you. Dr Michael Denton’s book will not help you. Francis Crick’s own observations will not help you.

    ps. I do not for one minute believe darling was lying. I think he really does believe that ionizing radiation could improve a strand of DNA. He is not a liar – he believes it.

    [UFOs being covered up]
    paul davies himself helped me to rationalize the improbabilities of life being discovered anywhere else in this time space universe. it was that observation that helped me to look at extra dimensionals rather than extra terrestrials. the non physical characteristics of sightings helped.
    the bible speaks of fallen angels.
    i don’t have a problem with Lloyd Pye’s starchild skull being a genuine hybrid from fallen angels/ extradimensional.
    I have not formed any conclusion about crop circles other than most of them are not man made – the designs and speed with which they appear suggests otherwise.

    teach me your facts. I am all ears.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: PG74, I have had to edit out your Potty Mouth expressions before!

    "...there is a time for swearing..." Sure - BEFORE - up until you become a Christian.

    PM74 (Potty Mouth TM 74) - what are you thinking of when you include the coarsest language in the English language in a blog posting on a Christian site?

    We have not done this before here, but I am going to give you a time out.

    I will carefully read any/every post you have submitted from the past several hours (that may be in the queue). Then - you are CUT OFF for one week. Yes, that is right. One week with no posts from you.

    After one week, if you choose to rejoin us, you will be welcome. But I expect you to keep your speech cleaned up. If you will send me your address, I will mail you a bar of soap to use in your mouth, young man. P.A. ]

  279. rebanate August 16, 2007 5:14 pm Reply

    Hello Brother Hovind,

    I want to let you know that your ministry has been a very wonderful and effective tool for my family. My husband and I have been married for 21 years and have 12 children. We have been blessed with your creation video’s for what I believe to be about 7 years now. My kids still watch your videos over and over again. They never fail to entertain as well as inform.

    I am hoping that you will consider reading this e-book concerning women and the christian church. It is a free e-book from this web site, Does God Really Prefer Men?

    http://www.doesgodreallyprefermen.com/

    It did disturb me that in your video series you spoke poorly of both Rosie O’Donnell and Elizabeth Taylor, both women for whom Christ died. Jesus would not have made fun of them. Also, the fact that the husband rules over his wife is a cause of the fall, not a command from God. Jesus Christ redeemed us from the curse. Christian husbands should be bringing fullness and redemption to their wives not ruling over them. That is a very sad way to run a marriage.

    It’s great that God is blessing you so greatly in prison. May He continue to do so.

    Much love in Jesus Christ our Lord, R. Coleman

  280. btodd August 16, 2007 5:36 pm Reply

    FROM AUSTRALIA PHILLIP GEORGE WROTE: teach me your facts. I am all ears. END QUOTE

    AP GEORGE, surely you don’t think I’m going to spend my time compiling complete factual records surrounding each of those proposed conspiracies to combat your many assertions. If that were how it works, I will never be finished, because you will simply assert some more. Some of those are merely speculative to begin with, so there is no real record of facts that can prove or disprove them….they simply remain unfounded assertions. My posing of the original question was to get an idea of how many conspiracies Three Crosses believes in, since I was pointing out the psychological nature of such fringe beliefs, in which they seem to act like a virus that mutates into new, inter-related conspiracies (see, this is relevant to Evolution! ;) .

    As for something like 9/11 Truth, there is already an enormous amount of factual data surrounding that day, but it doesn’t involve a plot by the U.S. Government. I really doubt Paul is going to let us go off on this tangent (or all of the others you asked me to), but the belief that WTC7 was ‘blown up’ makes no sense to the conspiracy anyway, despite having no data to back up the assertion. Even worse is your idea that no plane hit the Pentagon, which is easily refuted by several eyewitness reports, wreckage from the plane (yes, even in photos available on the net), and the recovered human remains of the victims. I wonder how you would feel about telling the 8000+ (yes, that’s correct) people who worked the crash site that they are in on the conspiracy. Tell them those weren’t really human remains they were recovering, and that they’re either mistaken or lying.

    And once you’re done telling them that, tell the families of the victims that they didn’t die at the Pentagon. Give them your current theory on what did happen to them (unless they’re in on the conspiracy too). And when they ask you how you know this…..be sure to let them know you watched some YouTube videos that spelled it out, and that you’re a patriot. This would also be a good time to indoctrinate them with some Tax Protestation ideas, since they’ll no doubt be impressed with your concern for truth.

    Btodd

  281. Millerfamily6 August 16, 2007 7:11 pm Reply

    DQ said,

    “The serpent (nowhere, by the way, does it say that it was Lucifer, as has been claimed on this blog)”

    Sir, the Bible does say that the serpent is the devil himself, who was originally named Lucifer and WAS the highest angel at one time until his rebellion. Rev. 12:9 says, And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels with him. Once again the Bible tells us in Rev 20:2, And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years…

    Also, food for thought (in regards to your saying that the Bible never says it was satan, the devil) is Gen. 3:15: And I will put enmity (hatred) beween thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. If it was just a snake talking, how would this verse make sense? In light of the fact that this verse speaks of the coming of Christ Jesus, the Lord, in the flesh, from the seed of the woman (which is a miracle because women do not produce seed, only the men), who will bruise the devil’s head, but the old serpent would only bruise His heel. This happened at the cross of our Saviour, who was painfully wounded, but satan was dealt a blow to the head when Christ died, decended into hell and rose from the dead, and the Lord Jesus will destroy the devil’s power once He returns in glory at His second coming and casts that old serpent, the devil, into the bottomless pit.

    Does it bother you that Lucifer is that old serpent, the devil, who tries to decieve the whole world which includes you, Mr. DQ? Please, I plead with you, to not remain on the devil’s side. You’re very soul will go there where the devil will reside in that pit of fiery hell, and that for an eternity. Salvation is simple; all we must do is to humble ourselves and cry out to the living God and ask Him to forgive us for our sin, and believe in His free gift of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, who was given as a sinless sacrafice as an atonement for our sins. Agree with God that it is us who belong on that cross, not the Lord God, Himself; oh, the love of God, that He came down to us, to redeem us from the curse of sin and death. If you don’t have the faith to believe, ask Him to help your unbelief; He’s answered that prayer before…many times I’m sure:0)

    In the love of Christ Jesus,
    Millerfamily6

  282. Millerfamily6 August 16, 2007 7:20 pm Reply

    from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on August 16th:

    Uh, I can’t repeat what Phillip-George said and wouldn’t want to. No, as a born-again Christian, Mr. George, there is not a time for that kind of perverse language. I hate it that that word was entered into my mind…now, I shall pray and ask the Lord to cleanse my mind from it.

    Please refrain from swearing on here, please; it does not glorify the Lord for a professed follower of Christ to speak like that.

    Mr. Abramson, I know you can’t read and catch all of what is said, so don’t blame yourself, o.k.?

    In the Love of Christ Jesus,
    Millerfamily6

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Thank you for noticing this. Once before he used such language, and recently, he wanted to use very graphic language in discussing abortion. I have edited his posting from 8-16 to remove his crude language. P.A. ]

  283. Geno August 16, 2007 8:03 pm Reply

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The TEACHERS of evolution (unwittingly, at least usually) encourage dishonesty, murder, rape, stealing, etc.
    **********
    Geno:
    It’s been a busy week or so and I’ve had little time to participate. It may be unwise to take on the moderator of the list, but I simply can’t let this pass without response. Today was our first day of class, and I’ve been busy preparing for the opening of school.

    As a teacher of SCIENCE, I find the above comment insulting at best and libelous at worst. That it would come from the Editor/Moderator of this blog is extremely disappointing.

    In public school science classes we rarely, if ever discuss moral issues. We don’t have nearly enough time to teach science, so we leave the discussion of such issues as “dishonesty, murder, rape, stealing, etc.” to the social studies classes. I have no idea how you can support a claim that we “encourage” something we don’t even discuss.
    *********

    Paul:
    Beliefs lead to actions. If one believes that “God does not see” their actions - this encourages some behaviors over others.
    **********
    Geno:
    Ah, the old, tired, “evolution = atheism” argument. This assumes those who accept evolution don’t believe in God. Forget the documented fact that the vast majority of those who accept evolution (from 76-82% depending on the poll) believe that evolution is a process of creation guided by God. What about all the evolutionists that believe in God; do you honestly think they “believe that ‘God does not see’ their actions”?
    (Documentation at: http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm)

    Science can make no claims (either way) about what God does, or does not see. When my students ask any questions at all about God, I point out that God is outside the limitations of the natural/physical world, so He is beyond the reach of scientific investigation.
    ********

    Paul:
    Honesty is definitely NOT encouraged when one ascribes to evolutionary beliefs.
    *******
    Geno:
    Why? Biology nor physics address the matter of honesty.
    *******

    Paul:
    Evolution also teaches the opposite of “Honor your Father and your Mother” (Fifth Commandment)
    *********
    Geno:
    Does it? Shouldn’t you “honor” that which made you what you are?
    *********

    Paul:
    when it implies/teaches that the future is in the offspring, so that one should concentrate on the children.
    ********
    Geno:
    Tell me…. do you “concentrate” more of your time, resources, and energy on your children or your parents?

    How about this… you’re on a boat with your father and your son. The boat sinks and you can save your father or your son, but not both. Which do you save?
    ********

    Paul:
    Evolution teaches values.
    *******
    Geno:
    No, it doesn’t.
    *******

    Paul:
    America is in a “Culture War”, and it is one largely of values: the culture of life vs. the culture of death. Note that it is the “culture of life” folks who are usually for capital punishment, but the “culture of death” folks are usually against capital punishment. Interesting contrast? Hypocritical? Who should society allow to be put to death: the innocent (like the unborn) or the guilty (like murders)?
    ********
    Geno:
    Again, these are issues that should be addressed in social studies, not physics and biology.
    ********

    Paul
    Should a disabled woman like Terri Schiavo, have been put to death?
    ********
    Geno:
    Now, this one did come up in my biology class. They all knew how she had been living for 13 years, so I pointed out that she almost certainly would live like that for the rest of her life. Then I asked only one question: “What would you want done if it were you?”

    There were no further comments.
    ********

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Science, pure and all, is "just science". Too bad evolution, as more of a believed history, is not science. It contends that science supports its version of history. That is different than it "being science" of course. Did you say that you teach science or a perverted history/evolution in your classes...?

    Terry Schiavo died in a lot of pain. She was mental disabled, but not a "vegetable" as the left-wing media contended. She recognized and responded to her parents. She needed help to eat, but she was not a "vegetable". She felt the pain. The last time her Mother and their attorney visited her a state trooper observed, to ensure that they did not try to give her any water or food. Terry wailed, the inside of her mouth was cracking from lack of fluids; she did not understand why she had been condemned. She felt what the judge, who never bothered to meet her, had left for her - pain and death. He was a church-going man, by the way. But he signed papers to kill her without bothering to meet her in person.

    The left-wing media is consistently distorting news articles. On multiple occasions the Pensacola newspaper had claimed that "Dinosaur Adventure Land" is now closed. No, it is still open. They wanted it closed though. Also, they regularly ignore stories about Christian persecution in America. Folks, please - take a look at the book: "Persecution" by David Limbaugh. P.A. ]

  284. Three Crosses August 16, 2007 9:24 pm Reply

    btodd
    Said this on August 16th, 2007 at 8:13am: Answers to the right

    9/11 Truth: I guess you don’t understand that when people are talking about 9/11, they mean when Osama allegedly “CONSPIRED” with Saudi and Egyptian nationals to take over jet airliners with box knives and fly them into the World Trade center. You might should buy a dictionary it is a conspiracy, unless you are claiming “buildings just do that!”
    //////
    Chemtrails: What is a “crop duster”? How are “clouds seeded” I guess if more than one person is involved it might be a conspiracy to kill bugs or make it rain. Cloud seeding rarely works. Look up conspiracy.
    //////
    Hidden Cancer Cures: Do you mean “would greed incite people to hide a cure for cancer”? It seems to be the reason some people fake evidence for evolution.
    //////
    JFK Assassination: Why don’t you study the rifle we were told Oswald used, then decide for yourself? It was inaccurate enough to have ricoched from just about anywhere. Then check out who was in charge of security for the president that day. After that check out all of the civilian film shot that day. Then look at the hours of recorded interrogation from Oswald’s questioning. Oh wait all that stuff is missing we’ll never know what happened. There is a movie called “Executive Action” if you can find it. It claims to stick to the facts.
    ///////
    OKC Bombing: Why doesn’t this surprise me? It is widely believed that Timothy McVeigh “CONSPIRED” with Terry Nichols to blow up the Murray Building (the home offices for the FBI, and the DEA)I wonder why they moved it from Langley? Again there is a “Politically Correct” book called American Terrorist if you would like to know the official story.
    ///////
    USS Cole bombing: Maybe you see a pattern forming isn’t that where a bunch of alleged Muslims CONSPIRED to pack a speed boat with explosives and blow out the side of an American Navy vessel.
    //////
    Holocaust Denial (I’m sure being a fundamentalist Christian should keep you safe from this one): Hey right on tell me what I am. I am saved by the “BLOOD OF CHRIST”! What are you? Are you a racist? Your statement seems to imply that and of course being an evolutionist. Whether or not Nazi war criminals conspired to hide evidence of the holocaust seems to be fairly well documented in the trial transcripts. Again you really don’t seem to know what conspiracy means.
    //////
    Free energy machines being kept secret: Only one thing is free to you! Jesus paid it so you and I wouldn’t have to!
    //////
    Engines that run on water, etc. being kept secret: I guess you are unaware of the “steam engine”, “the Stanley Steamer” even Howard Hughes had one built but he decided it was unsafe. Was that a trick question?
    ////////
    New World Order or One World Government: You are not aware of the “United Nations” I believe before that it called “The League of Nations”. I think more that one person would have been involved in bringing these things about. Would you prefer that Hitler “CONSPIRED” with his Italian and Japanese cronies to take over the world. I would have to question your education.
    ////////
    Skull and Bones being a Satanic society: I think your question might be considered treasonous at least unAmerican.
    ///////
    Moon landing hoax: If it was a hoax as you have stated. I think it would have taken more than one person to pull it off. What happened to those first three guys that were supposed to go? Didn’t they all say it couldn’t be done? Ask them.
    ///////
    Vaccinations: What was the excuse used by the perpetrators of “The sterilization project” here in the U.S.A. Why did they say they were there when they knocked on your door? Was the lack of flu vaccinations a conspiracy? Did more than one person conspire not to make enough to run up the price? When the national news ran their story that it really didn’t help. Who knows?
    //////
    IRS / Tax protestation: Is “protestation” a word. I’m pretty sure more than one person has conspired not to pay taxes look at Enron (or tax shelters). Oh never mind the evidence was lost at the World Trade Center terrorist attack!
    //////
    Evolution: No evolution is a religion, based on death promoting a free lifestyle, free of consequences. A lot of people might use “were just monkeys” as justification for anything from genocide to child abuse. Was that a trick question?
    //////
    UFOs being covered up: I know people have “CONSPIRED” to make U(unidentified)F(flying)O(objects). The Russians admitted to it they have a hanger full of them. How about the “SR-22 blackbird” I believe it was well documented that when the air force was flying those over Merced, California in it’s first flights that the U.S. Air force denied it’s existence. Wouldn’t that be a cover up but you could argue that it was probably one mans decision.
    /////////////
    Did you not believe any of those were conspiracies?

    As for you putting words in my mouth. I don’t believe all evolutionists are evil. They are just deceived. It does seem that they perform evil acts to support their religion, but many religions have examples of that.

    With love three crosses

  285. Learned Hand August 16, 2007 9:42 pm Reply

    Another quick example of End Times’ endless prevarication: “stochastic” does not mean “blind chance,” which is the farcical equivocation End Times keeps flogging. It means a process that involves or contains a random variable, which is what we’ve been saying all along. Evolution is a stochastic process, for our purposes – but the random variable is subject to a *non*-random filter. Again, consider our game of flipping coins and selecting results. That game, which is analogous to evolution through natural selection, is “stochastic” – it is dependent on a random variable. The results are not random, however. They are determined by a nonrandom filter. If we only apply our selective filter 90% of the time, we don’t have a deterministic process – we can’t determine all of its results ahead of time. We certainly don’t have a “blind chance” process either, though, contrary to End Times’ increasingly risible deceits.

    Similarly, ET still wants to defend Three Crosses’ statement that evolution teaches that genes think, and that individuals evolve through willpower. Your googled snippets don’t support TC’s statement at all, End Times. (An abstract using an analogy might be how creationists do science; the rest of us read the entire article. That’s just sad, End Times.) TC wasn’t using an analogy, he was simply being dishonest.

  286. Learned Hand August 16, 2007 9:43 pm Reply

    CreationCD, I note that none of the definitions you cite include abiogenesis or astronomy in their definitions of “evolution.” It’s no surprise that the textbooks discuss the age of the earth, which is useful information when discussing the amount of time necessary for evolution. Nor is it surprising that they discuss our present best theories regarding abiogenesis, which is a related theory. But you’ve kindly demonstrated that abiogenesis and evolution are quite separate theories. Thank you.

    You also asked, “would also object to Islam’s teachings of creation[?]”

    Yes, I would.

    “who are you working for, what is your goal?”

    Truth, justice, and the American way.

  287. Learned Hand August 16, 2007 9:44 pm Reply

    The moderator asks, “But rather does evolution teach [adultery] to be wrong or rather that one should spread his seed?”

    Sir, this is a strong example of the tendency of creationists to willfully deceive their audience. Evolution, as you should know, does not teach that anything is right or wrong, or that any individual should or shouldn’t do anything. It is not a prescriptive moral code. It is a description of the natural world, and nothing more. It has nothing to say about “good” or “evil.” Evolution has nothing to say about adultery being right or wrong. It’s not honest for you to pretend otherwise. If you don’t understand the descriptive nature of science, then it’s not honest for you to present yourself as any sort of authority on what evolutionary theory is or does.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: 1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."

    (PG74, note to you - "...avoiding profane and vain babblings..." from now on, please.)

    LH - "...avoiding ... science falsely so called." Evolutionists like to call it "science" but it is not such. It is a believed sequence of one-time past events, i.e. history. -A religious history; one that draws God out of the picture. Evolution is a "science, falsely so-called".

    The following verse then concludes with: (1 Timothy 6:21) "Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. P.A. ]

  288. Learned Hand August 16, 2007 9:45 pm Reply

    End Times said, “Creation predicts that genes will show a pattern of descent…”

    Really? Where? How? I don’t see how that flows from creationism at all. I can see why creationists would need to coopt the successes of science, in order to defend their ideology, but not that they ever did or would make this prediction in the absence of evolutionary theory.

  289. Three Crosses August 16, 2007 9:48 pm Reply

    To Rock Prevaricator:
    I don’t quite know what to think of “evolution condensed” myself. I did it more for the benefit of evolutionists. It’s kind of like that guy at Wal-Mart. You know the one, with shaving cream all over his face, in his underwear and screaming at the self-checkout machine. You know he doesn’t think he’s as crazy as he looks. Now if you take his picture and show it to him he’ll want to know “who is that nut?”.
    With and in good humor three crosses

  290. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 16, 2007 10:59 pm Reply

    btodd,
    i worked from 0715 to 2300 hrs yesterday following about 5 hours of broken sleep; of course I meant centimetres; and not centre meters and cm^3 not cm^2.
    i’m tired, forgive me please – I was just writing in knee jerk mode.

    centimetre as in: one one hundredth of 1/10,000,000 of the average distance from the equator to the geographic pole and not a certain measure of arc because of the oblate spheroid distortion on that measure.

    see french expedition to Quito early 18th C.

    ps. I don’t believe David Kelly committed suicide either. At the same time I believe that Joe Vialls had a previous life working somewhere in intelligence. I sat through some lectures with some ex National Safety Council people once – if they knew anything they were never going to disclose it even 20 years after the event. some people take their previous lives very seriously.

    pps. my god father worked on the manhattan project as an engineer. 40 years later he still thought that people were checking up on him periodically; to see if he wasn’t earning too much money etc. ie, had a life style that his official career couldn’t explain.

    he wrote a book – the intrinsic universe theory – perhaps you read it. it only sold a hand full of copies.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: This was in the queue, along with one other message from PG74. "French" should have been capitalized, along with "Manhattan Project". P.A. ]

  291. Samphire August 17, 2007 12:18 am Reply

    Hi, Three Crosses,

    “I guess you don’t understand that when people are talking about 9/11, they mean when Osama allegedly “CONSPIRED” with Saudi and Egyptian nationals to take over jet airliners with box knives and fly them into the World Trade center. It was all over the news for months I’m surprised you missed it.”

    I assume that, as a christian, you would be honest with me and therefore I have to accept that when you referred to a 9/11 conspiracy the Osama one was, in fact, the one you meant and which few doubt rather than the second version implicating your government and Israel. Please confirm that you do not support the second version.

    “I’m sorry but “evolution” doesn’t mean “science” no matter how many times you repeat it.”

    “Evolution is a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it is discrete; that is, it explains a specific set of data and does not explain or attempt to explain things outside that data set. It is not a “belief system” or a “worldview” or whatever absurd catchphrase is popular these days; it is a discrete scientific theory.”

    Paul said in a broadcast a few days ago that the teaching of evolution theory should be banned as anybody who teaches it “has blood on his hands”. Kent defines evolution under six headings; I assume that Paul does not resile from Kent’s definition. As almost all science is contained within those six headings Paul is preaching that pretty much all of natural science teaching should be banned. If it happened as Paul wishes watch America sink back into the Dark Ages just as China comes into the ascendant.

    “At our local college the chemistry professor was dismissed for believing creation 17 years of study, research, working as a scientist, and teaching made it obvious.”

    I know nothing of the case but I am willing to bet a third golden guinea (sheesh – this is getting dangerous) that he was not dismissed for believing in creationism but in preaching, sorry, I mean teaching it.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: I did say that teachers of evolution have blood on their hands, but I do not recall saying that it should be banned. I think it would be fine in a Comparative Religions class, with Aztec, Druid, Evolution, Shinto, Buddhist, and other beliefs. Yes, 6 definitions: http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm All must be true in order for evolution to have happened without a Supreme Being.

    If the teaching of evolution led to "better science" then why isn't Europe ahead of America? Why didn't the USSR win the Cold War? Polls show that Americans still have almost 50% believing creation over evolution. It is one of our strengths. In fact, if we had more creation - we would get further ahead! Belief in evolution does not lead up, but down. "...endowed by our Creator..." helped with our ascension. Creation teaches that we live in an orderly, constructed universe; evolution teaches that nothing exploded into something for no reason, there is no purpose to life, get it while you can, etc. P.A. ]

  292. Samphire August 17, 2007 12:21 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes:

    You wrote “Thus, we should be able to find all of the same elements in plants as we do in animals since all creatures in the beginning were vegetarian and had to get the building blocks of life from there (sic) meat.”

    How come some animals are entirely meat eaters and appear “designed`’ to be nothing else? What do you mean in stating that a complete animal requires to “get the building blocks of life from their meat (by which I assume you mean their initial vegetarian diet); a complete animal already has those building blocks?

    And how do you define `element`?

    Exactly (or roughly) how long did this process last and how would it relate to, say, the sparrow hawk, the basking shark or the emperor penguin?

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  293. Samphire August 17, 2007 1:22 am Reply

    “Maybe we could talk about Haldane’s Dilemma and its implications for (young earth) creation.

    Nice one, Darling. I suspect that it will pass by unrecognised by all of our creationist friends but one.

  294. Samphire August 17, 2007 1:26 am Reply

    Hi Chris,

    “Ah you have come out to play again! I was thinking we should setup a phone debate with you and another creation speaker. When would be good for you?
    I was thinking Eric Hovind or possible one of my Canadian friends. We could then post the debate online.
    Will this work for you?

    Still carping from the side-lines I see. Why don’t you come and join the fun by making a proper contribution? Let’s you and me have a written discussion about Kent’s video seminars. Let’s start with “the Age of the Earth” and I will show to you in detail the extreme deficiencies in his understanding of science and you can show me why I am wrong.

    As for a telephone debate, please read my post of Aug 15th at 8.38 a.m. Based upon my reasoning in that post, to have any chance of me winning you would have to employ the services of a debater to argue the naturalism cause whereas I would have to try to do my best with creationism. That is my only chance.

    As for Eric joining in, that would be an excellent idea but I would be surprised if he is not too busy with far more important matters at the moment.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  295. Samphire August 17, 2007 4:01 am Reply

    Phillip-George (c)1794 writes:

    “Chemtrails] I know nothing about this one but there are some interesting testimonies of people slightly involved with white unmarked planes. And there are photos of what do not appear to be simply high altitude vapor trails”

    How would the organising perpetrators protect themselves from such a pervasive and uncontrollable means of transmission?

    “[JFK Assassination] I believe the Warren Report is gravely deficient.

    Have you read it?

    “…or that it is impossible that it was not one or two others – and not him at all.”

    If you exclude Oswald then you do have serious problems with your hypothesis. It is “not impossible” that others were involved but there is no persuasive evidence.

    “[ Holocaust Denial (I’m sure being a fundamentalist Christian should keep you safe from this one)] maybe numbers killed have been greatly exaggerated for political leverage?

    If you are planning to go to Austria remember to take your toothbrush with you. You might be there longer than you had planned.

    “[ Free energy machines being kept secret] what if the zero point energy really is 10^95 ergs per square centre meter.“.

    If you can stop the universe expanding you might have a chance. Think how rich Hallibuton could become if it could get the patent on the technology.

    “[Engines that run on water, etc. being kept secret]

    Really? Don’t they have water mills or hydro-electric schemes in Oz?

    “at the very least fine water particles make for a really excellent catalyst.

    A catalyst is not an energy source.

    “Browns gas has some fascinating properties

    How to become a rich man: start off very rich and then lend Yull Brown lots of money.

    “electrolytics might be amazingly more efficient with the different designs of plates /spacing that they are trialing. resonance/ oscillation effects might have a profound effect. there is a consensus among people working with the equipment that others elsewhere in the world have cracked secrets about this but are literally afraid to talk about it.

    Presumably, you share that consensus and you are not scared to talk about it. But you should be, my friend. Very, very scared.

    “[ New World Order or One World Government] don’t you have any questions for david rockefeller or henry kissinger or the sweet homely folks who attend Bilderberg meetings. why have meetings if you have no agenda?

    How do you know they talk about One World Government?

    “[Moon landing hoax] until only recently I thought this one was a complete furfie. then I finally took a night off to watch one doco. I now have no doubt that there were mock up/ simulation or simultation centres good enough to produce photos/ video which could be used for publicity which one no-one untrained to look would tell the difference about.”

    Where would you have trained for the mission; on a piece of ground that did not try to simulate the Moon’s surface?

    “[Vaccinations] …one of my own children was immunized against Hepatitis B at the hospital soon after birth.

    You don’t mention whether or not your child has had any adverse reaction. I trust not.

    “I have not formed any conclusion about crop circles other than most of them are not man made”

    What are those strange tractor-tyre wide parallel marks that seem to intersect all crop circles? Have they any significance? I’ve racked my brains for years and can come up with no rational explanation for them.

    Who are those young bearded guys armed with paper, pencils and compasses and with strange far-away looks in their eyes sitting at this time of year in the inglenooks of quiet country pubs in the south of England whispering to each other and drinking real ale while occasionally looking over their shoulders and quietly chuckling away to themselves? I know who they are but daredest not say.

    Have you ever wondered why ET (not Endtimes) doesn’t visit us in the winter and make circles in the snow? Is it because the marks of students’ trainers, poles and scaffold boards are not so easily disguised as they are in cornfields?

  296. from Australia: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 17, 2007 4:01 am Reply

    Timothy Fellows,
    thanks for a few notes on marriage; hopefully the blog shall be returning to substantive material soon enough and your post may help that along.

    Article (6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir’s next-of-kin.

    this is taken straight from the magna carta,

    the concept of “do not be unequally yoked” comes straight from the bible.

    the requirement to let your next of kin know, is taken straight from the bible also: as one example “honour thy mother and father”

    apart from that commentators on the magna carta have said that the plain meaning of this article is that “government”/ the king/ parliament shall make no law restricting marriage, or even “pertaining” to marriage beyond what is written. End of story. Biblical/ canon law, along the lines of not marrying a first cousin/ step mother if your father had died etc. was commonly enough known to not need repetition in writing in the magna carta.

    government could not grant a license/ still cannot/ to do what is already lawful.

    it is also a maxim of law that man has an unlimited capacity to contract.

    “A right cannot die.” Dormit aliquando jus, moritur nunquam. For of such an high estimation is right in the eye of the law, as the law preserveth it from death and destruction: trodden downe it may bee, but never trodden out.
    Lord Sir Edward Coke.

    Heirs of the realm shall be married without “disparagement”.

    as far as I know disparagement is a synonym of “derogate”.

    Scotland up until only last year, still retained full recognition of common law marriage – apparently it has since caved in to European Union on this.

    these are just a few quick notes; I hope the themes can be expanded on ……………

    [Samphire if you can comment about Scotland’s recent changes in response to European Union they would be welcome]

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: This was in the queue, along with one other message from PG74. You didn't capitalize Magna Carta! For shame, for shame. P.A. ]

  297. DQ August 17, 2007 4:31 am Reply

    Amigas said: Concerning slavery, the Bible teaches how to treat slaves if you own one not necessarily that you should own one. I know that slavery as in early American history was criminal and horrible in every way, but slavery in the Bible is in many ways similar to what we do today with debt and employment.

    Oh yeah, Amigas, you’re right! Why didn’t I notice before that slavery in the bible is just like debt and employment now?!?

    I should have totally seen that on my own, since just last week the credit card company that I owe money to sold me to somebody and now he owns me for life plus he can pass me and my children on to his children because we are his property. Also, at work the other day my boss beat me with a rod until I lost consciousness, and I was in a coma and on life support for two days. When I woke up I called the cops, but they said there was nothing they could do, because I was my boss’s property and it’s legal for him to beat me as hard as he wants as long as I don’t die.

    Yes, Amigas, you’re totally right. Slavery in the bible is just like employment and debt now! How could I have missed that?

    It is true that God told the Israelites to kill all of the enemy including women and children, but this was a time and act of war somewhat like when we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and many “innocent” were killed but in the long run “I believe” many more were saved than killed.

    Don’t you think we should hold god to a higher standard than men? Listen to yourself- the US killed a lot of people by dropping a bomb on them, therefore it is ok for god to slaughter innocent children? And I don’t understand your argument that they had to kill these people because otherwise their descendants might come back and kill them. Can’t god protect them from the descendants? Is your opinion of god’s power that low, that you think he won’t be able to protect them? If god is all-powerful, as you believe, then any argument that he had to do something horrible now in order to avoid something horrible in the future is bunk. He could avoid any and all horrible events, present and future, if he is really all-powerful, right?

  298. CreationCD August 17, 2007 4:48 am Reply

    Dear Paul Abramson,

    In regards to your SMART Hour show on http://www.truthradio.com Monday 8/13/07 which was about the creation websites linked from your website http://www.creationism.org. Good show, as you know, I enjoy links and sharing information and resources.

    I’m surprised you do not link to http://www.nwcreation.net as a main creation site.

    They have held creation conferences for the past four years and offer free videos downloads of the seminars.
    In fact their next conference is August 23-25 in Lake Stevens, WA

    Plus their video links [multimedia / online videos] offer many creation videos that you just can’t find anywhere else. Please check them out.

    http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/index.html

    You might be very interested in their link to

    http://www.uctv.tv/search2.asp?keyword=Focus+on+Origins

    which are Focus on Origin lectures in the California University system. (Some are good, some are bad)

    Also, I’d like to recommend Mike Riddles PowerPoint presentations that you can download there.

    http://www.nwcreation.net/presentations/index.html

    Mike offers all his PowerPoint seminars for download. Some of the slides are very good.
    In fact if you’d like to the footage of Dr. Lovejoy grinding Lucy’s pelvis bones to make them fit his evolutionary need for her to walk upright download The Origin of Humans: Evolution or Made in God’s Image presentation. (You may have to change his bible references to KJV)

    If you don’t know what this is about, see:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

    LUCY, SHE’S NO LADY by Dr. David Menton

    I want to get a wooden puzzle decoupage a picture of a man. Remove the piece with the head. Take a wooden tile with an apes head on it and make it fit with a dremel tool as a Sunday School presentation along with this power point.

    Paul, Mike did a Creation Matters Radio Show for a while with some fantastic guest speakers. You might want to listen and contact him.

    http://www.nwcreation.net/riddle/KGNWradio.html

    Otherwise, during the radio shows he general followed his power point presentations so that you can get an idea of what he says with the slides.

  299. Jersey Girl August 17, 2007 4:55 am Reply

    Fellow bloggers,

    Boy, the creation/evolution debate sure has taken off again! I have always been curious why people who don’t believe in Yahweh try so hard to convince those of us that DO to believe in evolution. I love a good debate, but have any of you really thought about your motivation? Why do you try SO hard to convince us not to believe in a young earth? This website was created for fans of Kent Hovind, who is a young earth creationist, and it is not a debate blog per se. Why spend so much time trying to convince us we are wrong on one of our own websites? Most of you do believe in freedom, so why not just leave us poor ignorant Christians be? It sure is odd that you try so hard to convince us of your beliefs when we’re not really bothering anyone… Hmmm…..

    You know what, maybe for some of you evolution isn’t a religion. Even for some Christians they don’t seem to have much religion in their lives. But you have to admit for some evolutionists it IS a religion. Let me explain. Kent Hovind is a preacher. He made videos, he gives speeches, he tries to convert non-believers into Christians, he speaks out about what he believes in. That is definitely preaching. Now take some of you. You go onto a Christian website and argue for the theory of evolution quite vehemently at times, trying very much to convince us of our “mistaken ways.” Isn’t that preaching? You can’t call it educating, or informing, or teaching because we have no interest in being “taught” evolution. You are simply preaching. How is that not a religion?

    I’m sure most of you have seen the jesus fish that many people stick on their bumpers. How often do you see an altered form of this religious symbol on people’s cars. You know what I’m talking about. The fish with little feet on the bottom of it and Jesus has been replaced by Darwin. How is that not a religion?

    I could probably come up with several examples, but I think I’ve made my point. If you evolutionist bloggers truly are not religious people, then why not politely excuse yourself from our blog? Leave us Christians to share our beliefs amongst ourselves. We’re not hurting anything or anyone. After all, when we die we are just going to become worm food anyway, right? If you still feel compelled to argue with us about what we choose to believe, then perhaps it is time you truly consider your motivation behind the whole thing.

    I predict that none of you will excuse yourselves from the blog. You cannot help yourselves. For some strange reason, you simply MUST keep arguing with the ignorant Christians. You cannot simply live and let live. How do you explain this compulsion? WHY must you continue to argue with us when you could go to an evolution website and fit in perfectly? WHY does it bother you so much that we believe in the God of the Bible? You don’t seem to be so bothered by all the Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, Wiccans, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc. They probably all have blogs too.

    I’m saying all this NOT to try to be a jerk, so please don’t misunderstand. Most of my family and many of my friends are atheists, and I still care for them. I just want to make you really THINK about your motivations. Why do Christians bug you so much?

    Peter, Paul, CreationCD, and others, you definitely work very hard to try to win souls and for that I commend you. I know many on this blog have had their differences with me but we all share a love of Yahweh and that is what’s important. Please try not to become so absorbed with debating the evolutionists all the time. There are many Christians who are new believers here (like me) and we would be interested in you sharing your wisdom with us on other topics besides evolution. There is a whole lot of things that we could discuss that would help us grow in our faith and love of Yahweh. Perhaps you could spend a little time on that, as well. :)

    Rebecca

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Okay - saw your note and fixed typo. P.A. ]

  300. CreationCD August 17, 2007 4:58 am Reply

    Endtimes,

    thanks for link to
    http://www.uncommondescent.com

    I found more animations of cellular machines there. I love these things.

    God is great.

    They just can’t see. I have a Biochemisry book by Stryer that says “this ingenious design has evolved …” and a biology book that shows a cartoon of ATPsynthase as a machine with gears and things driven by a waterwheel.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/molecular-animations/

    I followed some of the credits on the videos and found more sites.

    http://www.wehi.edu.au/media/movies/wehi_tv/Apoptosis_Web.mov

    http://www.wehi.edu.au/education/wehi-tv/movies.html

    http://www.DNAtube.com

    I hope you enjoy these.

    I spent hours watching videos, so I’m just making a short post.

  301. Samphire August 17, 2007 6:59 am Reply

    Millerfamily 6 said:

    “which is a miracle because women do not produce seed, only the men”

    Actually, neither do. Women produce eggs and men produce semen. A “seed” is the already fertilised ovule of a plant.

    The Bible not being the best textbook available on embryology, I suspect that the OT writers had no knowledge of how gametes fuse – it took scientists rather than priests to work the process out – so the nicest thing one could say is that they did the best they could with their limited knowledge by resorting to simile.

    I also suspect that the true story is a male-oriented one, the female being considered to have no function in the process other than that which an oven bears to bun-baking.

  302. DQ August 17, 2007 7:14 am Reply

    MillerFamily said: Sir, the Bible does say that the serpent is the devil himself, who was originally named Lucifer and WAS the highest angel at one time until his rebellion. Rev. 12:9 says, And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels with him. Once again the Bible tells us in Rev 20:2, And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years…

    The dragon referenced in Revelation is not the same one as in the Garden of Eden. The dragon in Revelation has seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. Such a creature could never be confused with a normal serpent.

    Also, food for thought (in regards to your saying that the Bible never says it was satan, the devil) is Gen. 3:15: And I will put enmity (hatred) beween thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. If it was just a snake talking, how would this verse make sense?

    Here’s more food for thought. Why, if the serpent is satan, does god in Gen. 3:14 curse the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust? That only makes sense if it’s an actual snake. Unless you are suggesting that satan crawls on his belly and eats dust. Also, the part about the snake striking a person’s heel and the person stepping on its head make perfect sense when talking about a normal snake. If god is cursing a snake to crawl on its belly (makes you wonder how the snake got around before, doesn’t it?) it makes sense to say that now that you’re on your belly, you will only be able to strike at a man’s heel, while the man will be able to step on your head. Further, Jesus did not step on any snake’s head when he was crucified, nor is there any record of him being bitten on the heel.

    Does it bother you that Lucifer is that old serpent, the devil, who tries to decieve the whole world which includes you, Mr. DQ?

    No, it does not bother me at all, since I don’t believe it.

    Please, I plead with you, to not remain on the devil’s side.

    Since the devil does not exist, I am not “on his side.”

    Salvation is simple; all we must do is to humble ourselves and cry out to the living God and ask Him to forgive us for our sin, and believe in His free gift of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ

    I appreciate your concern, MillerFamily. You will be happy to know that I am saved, I admitted I was a sinner, asked for forgiveness, and accepted Jesus as my savior at age 14. I can assure you that I was quite serious at the time. So you can stop worrying about the fate of my soul, since “no man can pluck me out of god’s hand.”

  303. DQ August 17, 2007 7:51 am Reply

    Terry Schiavo died in a lot of pain

    This is a blatant, outright lie. Terri Schiavo could not feel any pain. And you don’t have to listen to the media. The autopsy showed that her brain was only half the weight it should have been, the rest had wasted away. There was extensive damage to the thalami, which are responsible for relaying pain messages.

    She was mental disabled, but not a “vegetable” as the left-wing media contended.

    8 out of 9 neurologists that examined her said she was in a persistent vegetative state. Further, the autopsy, in finding that half her brain was gone, affirmed the diagnosis. No need to believe the “left wing media.” Just read the autopsy.

    She felt the pain.

    Again, a total lie. I am starting to see what LH has been talking about, how christians will tell any lie in furtherance of their agenda.

    She recognized and responded to her parents.

    This is blatantly false. The autopsy revealed the Terri was blind. This is indisputable.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Her lawyer was there. He has written about this. I heard him speak in person. It is true that one side in this Culture War is consistently not telling the truth. Human suffering, particularly that of the innocent, is evidently not important to that side. P.A. ]

  304. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 8:38 am Reply

    Interesting notes, DQ. I think you inspired some research :)

    Doctor Hovind, while outside and alone at least partially, I like pondering over the first few chapters in Ezikiel. In your position, this would be the perfect opportunity to ponder over this part of God’s amazing creation.

  305. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 9:14 am Reply

    Sorry, CSE. Could you please edit out that first sentence on the last post? I made a mistake. Thanks ;)

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: It included quotes. ...I prefer not editing. I can handle a word or two, but a sentence with quoted info.... I was not sure how much to trim off. Please resend the post. Sorry. P.A. ]

  306. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 9:38 am Reply

    Wait a minute…

    Now that I’ve reread your post, DQ, your last phrase rings red flags everywhere. There is a devil. He is the opposite of God. He is why people don’t believe. His existence is undeniable.

  307. GORGE August 17, 2007 10:03 am Reply

    Dear DQ,

    I want to write more, but can I ask you simply to look at the following scriptures for the present until I can write further (if you want), I sense the scriptures speak for themselves in offering a solution to your query. On top of these scripture I have left some links, which will focus greater light on the subject matter.
    //////////////

    You Stated:

    “The serpent (nowhere, by the way, does it say that it was Lucifer, as has been claimed on this blog) was telling Eve the truth when he told her that if she ate from the tree she would know the difference between right and wrong”

    /////////////////////////“`

    GORGE OF THE Jumbo replies;

    Revelation 12:8-10
    8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

    9And the great dragon was cast out, that old SERPENT, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

    10And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/serpent.asp

    ///////////////////…

    DQ States:

    “So it is clear that Adam and Eve did not know the difference between right and wrong prior to eating the fruit, turning the Garden of Eden into a setup. ”

    ///////////////////…

    GORGE :

    Genesis, Chapter 2,

    V16″And the LORD God COMMANDED the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

    17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

    And

    Chapter 3

    “2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

    3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

    They knew they should not eat of the fruit.
    ///////////…

    DQ STATES:

    “My question is where is the tree of life and the flaming sword guarding it? Surely our troops, in their search for the WMDs, should have come across this think that the tree of life has died, that wouldn’t make much sense, now would it, so it must still be there. Where then is the flaming sword? Surely our satellites could detect such a thing, if it were there.”

    …//////…///////…

    GORGE replies;

    THE flood enclosed THE WHOLE EARTH, altering it and
    ANNIHILATING the prior features of the earths face, including the Garden of Eden:

    Genesis 7
    “10And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

    11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”

    The Garden was destroyed, but the tree of life is at home in heaven.

    Revelation 2:7
    He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

    Revelation 22:2
    In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    Revelation 22:14
    Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030110_153.asp
    //////////…
    The subsequent link provides excellent detail on all these matters.

    Click on “The Garden of Eden”, “Dinosaurs and the Bible”

    http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

    “And when the tumult dwindled to a calm,
    I left him practising the hundredth psalm.”

    Lord Byron (1788-1824)

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20100&version=9

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  308. btodd August 17, 2007 10:23 am Reply

    JERSEY GIRL WROTE: Boy, the creation/evolution debate sure has taken off again! I have always been curious why people who don’t believe in Yahweh try so hard to convince those of us that DO to believe in evolution. I love a good debate, but have any of you really thought about your motivation? Why do you try SO hard to convince us not to believe in a young earth? This website was created for fans of Kent Hovind, who is a young earth creationist, and it is not a debate blog per se. Why spend so much time trying to convince us we are wrong on one of our own websites? Most of you do believe in freedom, so why not just leave us poor ignorant Christians be? It sure is odd that you try so hard to convince us of your beliefs when we’re not really bothering anyone… Hmmm….. END QUOTE

    First of all, like you, I love a good debate. Guilty as charged. My reason for being here is not to talk you out of belief in God (I really don’t care about that), but to talk you out of this idea that it’s either God or Evolution. THAT’s the problem. The ‘holding to a literal Bible’ is the problem. Even worse for this particular brand of fundamentalism, is being mixed in with numerous fringe beliefs about conspiratorial governments, conspiratorial scientists, conspiratorial everybody-that-doesn’t-agree-with-us. At its worst, this brand of fundamentalism uses the unfounded assertions of one conspiracy to bolster the unfounded assertions of another, in an intricate psychological web that separates the end user further and further from reality and convinces him/her that everyone else has evil, calculated intentions in their every action.

    In a more general sense that lies outside the Hovind brand of literalism, and even into the Intelligent Design movement, it is plainly obvious that there will be no way for me to ignore you OR them. Just wait; there will be another school board yet that has to go through the ‘wedge strategy’ circus that these beliefs culminate in.

    JERSEY GIRL WROTE: You know what, maybe for some of you evolution isn’t a religion. Even for some Christians they don’t seem to have much religion in their lives. But you have to admit for some evolutionists it IS a religion. Let me explain. Kent Hovind is a preacher. He made videos, he gives speeches, he tries to convert non-believers into Christians, he speaks out about what he believes in. That is definitely preaching. Now take some of you. You go onto a Christian website and argue for the theory of evolution quite vehemently at times, trying very much to convince us of our “mistaken ways.” Isn’t that preaching? You can’t call it educating, or informing, or teaching because we have no interest in being “taught” evolution. You are simply preaching. How is that not a religion? END QUOTE

    People do that in all walks of life. You simply are saying that anything someone feels strongly about or is vocal about is a religion, and that’s just not true. The use of ‘evolution is a religion’ is merely an attempt to try to level the playing field between it and your beliefs, because you haven’t been able to get them into the science world (and refuse to do so). Framing the debate in these terms is the only way for you to gain a position to even argue from, and you only argue to the uninformed, and claim conspiracy by science as to why you don’t submit to peer-reviewed, scientific journals as everyone else had to do to get their theories accepted.

    JERSEY GIRL WROTE: I’m sure most of you have seen the jesus fish that many people stick on their bumpers. How often do you see an altered form of this religious symbol on people’s cars. You know what I’m talking about. The fish with little feet on the bottom of it and Jesus has been replaced by Darwin. How is that not a religion? END QUOTE

    It’s used to counter religion, and it’s mostly sarcasm pointed at those who vocalize their religious beliefs on their cars. I think its intent is to do just what it did, make you feel challenged and possibly angry. Don’t act as if your ‘side’ doesn’t offer up plenty of the same, with bumper stickers like “If you’re living like there is no God, you’d better be right!” or “God doesn’t believe in Atheists”. We’re all guilty of that type of rhetoric. Are the bumper stickers that celebrate a controversy between which is best, Ford or Chevy, religious in nature, too?

    JERSEY GIRL WROTE: I could probably come up with several examples, but I think I’ve made my point. If you evolutionist bloggers truly are not religious people, then why not politely excuse yourself from our blog? Leave us Christians to share our beliefs amongst ourselves. We’re not hurting anything or anyone. After all, when we die we are just going to become worm food anyway, right? If you still feel compelled to argue with us about what we choose to believe, then perhaps it is time you truly consider your motivation behind the whole thing.

    I predict that none of you will excuse yourselves from the blog. You cannot help yourselves. For some strange reason, you simply MUST keep arguing with the ignorant Christians. You cannot simply live and let live. How do you explain this compulsion? WHY must you continue to argue with us when you could go to an evolution website and fit in perfectly? WHY does it bother you so much that we believe in the God of the Bible? You don’t seem to be so bothered by all the Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, Wiccans, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc. They probably all have blogs too. END QUOTE

    As I said, you won’t just be left alone. You’ll be trying to convince us to put warning stickers on Biology textbooks and teach religion as science. You’ll be fighting against stem-cell research. You’ll be teaching others who share your religious views about your other fringe views like 9/11 Truth, Tax Protestation and many more. Not only that, but some of you will make it sound as if those ideas are ALSO part of being a real or good Christian! Am I supposed to consider that harmless? To answer as to why I’m not on a Hindu, Muslim or Pagan site (etc.), I never hear about them pushing pseudoscience and conspiracies in my country! I’ll be happy to tell you that if any of those had the ability to delude people in my home state like fundamentalist Christianity does, then I would no doubt be as vocal with them as I am with you. I have a vested interest in promoting reality.

    JERSEY GIRL WROTE: I’m saying all this NOT to try to be a jerk, so please don’t misunderstand. Most of my family and many of my friends are atheists, and I still care for them. I just want to make you really THINK about your motivations. Why do Christians bug you so much? END QUOTE

    Hopefully, I’ve answered that. I’ve always sensed a motive behind this argument (I’ve heard it many times) that seems to say, “See? If you didn’t know in you heart that Jesus Christ is God, and we really have the truth, then you wouldn’t bother debating us!” While that may ring true in your mind, I don’t have any real desire to remove your belief in Jesus, simply to help you realize that you don’t have a cornerstone on truth, and it is entirely plausible to believe in God and Evolution, they are not mutually exclusive ideas. I also debate 9/11 Truth, Scientology, UFOs and other things. It doesn’t mean I somehow actually believe in them on a subconscious, ‘in my heart’ level, either. Conversely, I have seen Christians on the JREF (James Randi Forums) and Creationist ones, too. Does that mean those Christians are subconsciously admitting that God doesn’t exist by going there and debating? Of course not.

    Btodd

  309. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 10:27 am Reply

    Finnishing up my chain of comments…

    I misread your post the first time, DQ.

    DQ, without a devil, how can you explain evil? Pain? The problems in the world? Without the devil, the only one who could do it would be God. If that is so, God is toying with us and shouldn’t command our reverence and love. However, he didn’t do it. The devil did it. The Bible provides the evidence.

  310. Three Crosses August 17, 2007 11:01 am Reply

    To samphire:
    I guess the “conspiracy theory” comment you made kind of missed the mark. I was careful to tell you where to look for answers. I agree with your point that many people are “deceived” for instance; if some one had experience in building demolitions they might notice several things about those three buildings coming down. One might even check out the recent skyscraper fire in China. If some one had ever stood next to a Boeing 757 they might notice something about the Pentagon. Only a fool or a die hard patriot would mention these things. Oh yeah and if he did, some one might, just burn him, his church and a bunch of innocent babies. That’s ok though, they were just monkeys right(heavy sarcasm and disgust). I guess I also have to point out that you add the word “DISCRETE” to your religion now. If you are claiming evolution only means “change” why is that a theory? (it is testable, demonstrable, repeatable and observable) You however are talking about the religious part that isn’t science.
    In closing you can say whatever you want about America, you are an English subject.

    ///////////
    To Jersey Girl:
    You made some very good points on the “religious fervor” of evolutionist “preachers”. Please don’t get put off when they come back with “blind fury” because you have exposed them. I guess the question they won’t answer is “why evolution?”. When they do try and explain it, it comes out as “evolution/process is a supernatural entity, with conscious will, and a plan that can do magical things”. In closing many of these “preachers” know who they work for. Some like “Self Proclaimed Hand” just write about us, instead of to us. Their reason for being here is not to argue with us, it is to deceive those who may be undecided. I really liked your post it served to remind me of some things.

    ///////////
    To DQ: You said “Since the devil does not exist, I am not “on his side.””

    Then you said: “You will be happy to know that I am saved, I admitted I was a sinner, asked for forgiveness, and accepted Jesus as my savior at age 14.”

    If there is no devil (hell created for the devil and his angels). What were you saved from? Do you beleive in God? The church of “Christian Science” seems to believe that there is no hell or sin. What would they be saved from? I think you might want to spend some time in prayer to figure out what you do believe.

    With love three crosses

    P.S. Are you trying to make a point not capitalizing God. I understand that you may not be .

  311. Millerfamily6 August 17, 2007 11:55 am Reply

    DQ said this:

    “Why, if the serpent is satan, does god in Gen. 3:14 curse the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust? That only makes sense if it’s an actual snake. Unless you are suggesting that satan crawls on his belly and eats dust. Also, the part about the snake striking a person’s heel and the person stepping on its head make perfect sense when talking about a normal snake. If god is cursing a snake to crawl on its belly (makes you wonder how the snake got around before, doesn’t it?)”

    Mr. DQ, yes I agree with that part of your assessment of this passage; however, you are ignoring the Lord’s word which is connecting the devil with being THAT OLD SERPENT…Rev 20:2, And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan. The 7 heads and crowns, I believe, may be in reference to his kingdom via his possession of the antichrist. Aren’t heads, crowns,and horns words used to depict things of a governmental nature or kingdom?

    My understanding is that satan entered into the serpent to deceive Eve, and yes, you’re right regarding your statement: “If god is cursing a snake to crawl on its belly (makes you wonder how the snake got around before, doesn’t it?) it makes sense to say that now that you’re on your belly, you will only be able to strike at a man’s heel, while the man will be able to step on your head.” It does make sense that perhaps the serpent did not crawl at one time. There can be a twofold meaning to this text. I did not mean to imply that the snake was not cursed, but there was also a deeper spiritual meaning to that passage.

    I do not understand how you can say, “Since the devil does not exist, I am not “on his side,” and claim that you trusted the Lord Jesus as your Saviour, and yet, you do not believe Him. The Lord Jesus references the devil many, many times in Scripture, as I know you know. I would be careful of your salvation experience of 14, and truly be sure that you did not accept another Jesus, another gospel. Forgive me if I’m wrong but your comment, “I can assure you that I was quite serious at the time. So you can stop worrying about the fate of my soul, since “no man can pluck me out of god’s hand”
    sounds quite smug for a fellow brother in Christ (true born-again Christians would be thankful that someone was concerned for their soul and concerned that a person might be in error concerning God’s word). You were quite serious “at the time,” but didn’t continue in the Word of God and being taught of Him and by Him? Philipians 2:12, …work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 2 Peter 1:9-10 tells Christians, But he that lacketh these things (you’ll have to read verses 3-8) is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall…

    Now, Mr. DQ, a true Christian loves the Word of God and believes Him. Do you have this love for His word? I can tell you that I will not worry over your salvation, however, I do love people and hate the thought of any perishing. Souls are valuable, and we love because He first loved us. People do have false salvation experiences, especially if the gospel being preached is another gospel or the Jesus being presented is another Jesus. I do not at all see how you can be a true born-again believer in Christ Jesus, who is the Word made flesh, and believe in evolution or not believe that there is a real devil (i.e., that old serpent, satan). Just concerned for those who may be decieved, as I’ve been there. The devil is very crafty and subtle and he brings about much confusion over the Word of God, as he did in the beginning with Eve.

    In His Love,
    Millerfamily6

  312. Matthew August 17, 2007 12:34 pm Reply

    Editor said: Polls show that Americans still have almost 50% believing creation over evolution. It is one of our strengths. In fact, if we had more creation – we would get further ahead!

    “The majority is not always right.” – Kent Hovind.

  313. JohnLake August 17, 2007 12:45 pm Reply

    Three Crosses
    Said this on August 16th, 2007 at 9:24pm:

    btodd
    Said this on August 16th, 2007 at 8:13am: Answers to the right
    Three Crosses
    9/11 Truth: I guess you don’t understand that when people are talking about 9/11, they mean when Osama allegedly “CONSPIRED” with Saudi and Egyptian nationals to take over jet airliners with box knives and fly them into the World Trade center. You might should buy a dictionary it is a conspiracy, unless you are claiming “buildings just do that!”

    Do you even READ the post you are replying to? Btodd is asking you if you believe the conspiracies attached to theses subjects. Osama, al-Qaeda and others conspired to crash planes into several buildings IS THE OFFICIAL STORY. The CONSPIRACY is that our own government was somehow involved.


    OKC Bombing: Why doesn’t this surprise me? It is widely believed that Timothy McVeigh “CONSPIRED” with Terry Nichols to blow up the Murray Building (the home offices for the FBI, and the DEA)I wonder why they moved it from Langley? Again there is a “Politically Correct” book called American Terrorist if you would like to know the official story.

    McVeigh and Nichols is the OFFICIAL STORY. The CONSPIRACY is that others were involved (the government again?), there was/is a cover-up of additional evidence and there was more than the truck bomb used to cause that much destruction to the Alfred P. Murrah building. BTW, the Murrah building was a regional office for the FBI and DEA. The CIA is still headquartered in Langley, VA.

    Holocaust Denial (I’m sure being a fundamentalist Christian should keep you safe from this one): Hey right on tell me what I am. I am saved by the “BLOOD OF CHRIST”! What are you? Are you a racist? Your statement seems to imply that and of course being an evolutionist. Whether or not Nazi war criminals conspired to hide evidence of the holocaust seems to be fairly well documented in the trial transcripts. Again you really don’t seem to know what conspiracy means.

    This is unbelievable…. I don’t know where to begin.

    Engines that run on water, etc. being kept secret: I guess you are unaware of the “steam engine”, “the Stanley Steamer” even Howard Hughes had one built but he decided it was unsafe. Was that a trick question?

    Apparently it was a trick question, for YOU, and in more ways than one. Besides not getting the right conspiracy (again), a steam engine DOES NOT RUN ON WATER.


    New World Order or One World Government: You are not aware of the “United Nations” I believe before that it called “The League of Nations”. I think more that one person would have been involved in bringing these things about. Would you prefer that Hitler “CONSPIRED” with his Italian and Japanese cronies to take over the world. I would have to question your education.

    You’re questioning btodd’s education?

    My head hurts….


    Skull and Bones being a Satanic society: I think your question might be considered treasonous at least unAmerican.

    Moon landing hoax: If it was a hoax as you have stated. I think it would have taken more than one person to pull it off. What happened to those first three guys that were supposed to go? Didn’t they all say it couldn’t be done? Ask them.

    Vaccinations: What was the excuse used by the perpetrators of “The sterilization project” here in the U.S.A. Why did they say they were there when they knocked on your door? Was the lack of flu vaccinations a conspiracy? Did more than one person conspire not to make enough to run up the price? When the national news ran their story that it really didn’t help. Who knows?

    IRS / Tax protestation: Is “protestation” a word. I’m pretty sure more than one person has conspired not to pay taxes look at Enron (or tax shelters). Oh never mind the evidence was lost at the World Trade Center terrorist attack!

    I could not even figure out what you were talk about concerning the Skull & Bones and Moon Landing. As for Vaccinations, what was “The sterilization project” [sic]? And was your comment about Enron and the WTC your attempt at some sort of joke? Enron’s failure (which was NOT caused by the use of tax shelters) happened after 9/11.

    Hey, wait a minute….

    I get it now! Your whole post was just a joke, right TC? It was just that creative literature of your’s again.

    Ha Ha Ha, good one!

    You had me going there for a while.

    Ha Ha…Huh, what? It wasn’t a joke?

    oh,…how sad.

    JohnLake

  314. ccherrett August 17, 2007 1:08 pm Reply

    Samphire,

    Spoken like a true coward.

    I do not contribute to the evolution debate on this forum based on the request for this forum to remain a place for news regarding the well being of Kent Hovind and Family. You have disregarded this rule so many times and tried to pull the debate that people are starting to forget the purpose of this blog.

    I don’t come to this blog to hear you spout off. I come here to get news on the well being of the Hovinds. That said go find another forum to pollute. You are obviously too cowardly to come out of your little hole and be made know for what you are.

    As for Eric debating you, I would imagine no matter what happens he would be glad to at some point wipe you up in public in a live debate. For that matter I would do it on the phone if we could record it and post it online. I think people would see very quickly that you are nothing but hot air.

    So…… Let’s do it!

    I have never debated before but feel I would be ready to wipe up your lies!

    Chris Cherrett

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: Please be persuasive, but less argumentative, and less directly insulting to an individual; in this case, the distinguished Mr. Samphire. P.A. ]

  315. defendtruth August 17, 2007 2:43 pm Reply

    First off, I have been following this blog for quite some time and I don’t normally post on forums, but I feel somewhat compelled to jump in. I hope some of you will welcome me even though I am quite certain several of you will strongly disagree with me since I don’t believe in the religion of evolutionism and I freely speak my mind about it. However, I will try my best to treat everyone with respect even though we may disagree and hopefully you will do the same. I am not going to give you my life story, but I am 36yrs old and I have been married to my beautiful wife for 14years I have two kids a boy 7 and a daughter 5 so my response time will be limited due to family, Church, and school obligations.
    Ok on to a few points and thoughts now I am not a PhD Scientist not that it matters anyone can take the time to study and have an opinion on Creation vs. Evolutionism controversy even though some seem to think differently (I keep seeing this attitude of don’t talk science to me unless you have a PhD), which is fine everyone has a right to believe what they want, but I find it odd though how some equate knowledge, intelligence and truth with the number of degrees a person may have under their belt. Knowledge can be gained several ways besides just going to college so I find the whole argument that Kent Hovind lacks the proper degree therefore he doesn’t understand evolutionary science ludicrous for many reasons. If proper knowledge about evolutionism is only gained from going to college than why do the natural history museums, libraries, science centers and educational shows like Nova, Discovery Channel, and the History Channel etc. waste their time trying to educate the people? I work with some (not all) well educated people in my job some holding advanced degrees, but somehow still seem to lack logic and common sense in their thinking process and for the most part to be honest are not very bright, but at the same time I know several people who have never stepped foot on a college campus who are highly intelligent individuals who have gained the knowledge they need on their own through and can run circles around some of the PhD’s I work with. Take a look at Bill Gates for example he did not even come close to finishing college, but managed to change the computer world, and I think he is doing pretty well for himself last time I checked.
    My point is while education can be a good thing and I have benefited from going to college I have a few degrees as well such as an Associates Degree in Technology and a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems and I am now working on my Masters in Theology. The down side however is the emphasis society seems to put on everyone to get a college education in order to be an intellectual member of society is overrated in my opinion compared to knowledge gained through experience and self-study. For example, when I finished Associate degree I thought it would drastically change my life somehow, but found myself to be the exact same person with just more book knowledge so I thought it was because I was lacking a Bachelors degree and felt if I completed this degree it would change things, but after graduating I actually had a bit of an empty feeling and felt a little disappointed because I had bought into the lies the world was selling about higher education. I am not saying College is a waste of time or that a person shouldn’t go it did help to open up doors, but I wish I would have went for different reasons like I am now just for the joy of learning and not for the piece of paper they hand you when you finish. I learned far more on the job in the first 6months compared to my entire time in college. So how do you know every book he has studied since college and how many time have been there every time he was researching various subjects? This is what I do notice about some people who have gone to college they become more arrogant because they began to think they are smarter than anyone else with less college education than them.
    So the people who keep bringing up Kent Hovinds educational background on this blog are doing nothing more than trying to distract from the real issue at hand which is the theory of evolutionism is fraud and it doesn’t take someone with a PhD degree to figure this out it just takes logic and common sense and the willingness to listen. Lastly, I lead a Creation vs. Evolutionism class at my church and I use several different sources for class materials such as CSE, AIG and ICR materials for my class and when I have shown Kent’s seminars to people in my class the one’s who were strong believers in evolution, but came to class with and open mind and willingness listen became completely unbrainwashed in the first 30min of one of his video’s playing it was the most amazing thing to watch. I had another person tell after watching one of the videos I was showing he caught himself wanting to argue with Kent the whole time while watching the video because at the time he strongly disagreed with what Kent was saying, but after going home and researching it for himself found he was unable to argue against what logic, common sense and the light of conscience was telling him evolution is nothing but a lie he had been deceived to believe through school plain and simple. Some in the end some will choose to embrace their Creator God and some would rather believe the lie of evolutionism rather than give up authority and control of their life to God who does set rules down for our own good, but for those folks with hardness of heart all you can do is show them the evidence and pray for them. However, I have made my choice and I have no doubt in my mind God exists and one day I will see him face to face just as sure as I am that I will go home tonight and embrace my wife and kids and thank him for the blessing they are to me by giving them a big hug!

    God Bless!

    1 Corinthians 8:1 (KJV)
    Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth
    Romans 1:20 (KJV)
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

  316. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 6:21 pm Reply

    Responding to DTODD:

    Ah. In public schools, it is rammed down our throats :| Also, evolutionists use things that have been proven wrong. We wish to show these people that they are following a flawed theory. We try to be the salt of the earth; and (quoting Kent Hovind), salt irritates and preserves. We try to act so :)

  317. BiC August 17, 2007 6:22 pm Reply

    Interesting: The Creator does not subdue to the laws of his creation;
    What did Jesus do to proof this?

    1. In CHEMISTRY, HE turned water to wine.
    2. In BIOLOGY, HE was born without the normal conception;
    3. In PHYSICS, HE disaproved the law of gravity when HE ascended into heaven;
    4. In ECONOMICS, HE disaproved the law of diminishing return by feeding 5000 men with 2 fishes & 5 loaves of bread;
    5. In MEDICINE, HE cured the sick and the blind without administering a single dose of drugs,
    6. In HISTORY, HE is the beginning and the end;
    7. In GOVERNMENT, HE said that He shall be called wonderful counselor, prince of peace;
    8. In RELIGION, HE said no one comes to the Father except through Him;

    SO…WHO IS HE? HE IS JESUS, ARCHITECHT OF THE UNIVERSE

    John 1:1; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” :2 “The same was in the beginning with God.” :3 “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made”. :4 “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men”. Math 19:4 Jesus said: “Have ye not read, that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female” In the last paragraph God actually tells the people that the Bible is the source of information on the creation. READ the Bible He says. As Creator of the universe, that know all things about everything He made, refers to the Bible as source for this information. He is HOLY HOLY HOLY and may not lie…. He is real, without doubt. Mr 16:17 “And these signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;” These signs are evident today and how can one still NOT believe? I dont know of one man that died and that have caused an earthquake. Mt 27:54 “Now when the centurion, and those who were with him watching Jesus, saw the earthquake and those things that took place, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”
    The greatest problem is that people try to understand God’s creation with science…. it cannot be done as such. God is spirit and we are spirit. We can just discover some things He has made scientifically; we can only know God and more of His creation by revelation from His side. Thats what the Bible is there for and for those who worship Him in spirit and in truth, they will understand the revelation. Jesus also made a promise that the Holy Spirit will teach us. Nothing of these can be received without FAITH. Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” 2Co 10:3 “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.” That is the war that Dr Hovind is fighting at the moment. For some it appears that he fights what happened in the flesh, it is a spiritual warfare and a HUGE promise revealed that he ought to win this battle. Re 12:11 “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony” Another HUGE promise is this: Re 3:21 “To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with Me on My throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with My Father on His throne.”

    JESUS IS THE FULL REVELATION OF GOD. To have Jesus in your life, you have it all and all things are possible. Php 4:13.

    Thats how I see things and truely believe these….

  318. EndTimes August 17, 2007 7:25 pm Reply

    Samphire

    Said this on August 17th, 2007 at 12:21am:

    Hi Endtimes:

    You wrote “Thus, we should be able to find all of the same elements in plants as we do in animals since all creatures in the beginning were vegetarian and had to get the building blocks of life from there (sic) meat.”

    How come some animals are entirely meat eaters and appear “designed`’ to be nothing else? What do you mean in stating that a complete animal requires to “get the building blocks of life from their meat (by which I assume you mean their initial vegetarian diet); a complete animal already has those building blocks?

    And how do you define `element`?

    Exactly (or roughly) how long did this process last and how would it relate to, say, the sparrow hawk, the basking shark or the emperor penguin?

    Kind regards

    Samphire

    Dear Samphire,

    Good questions. First of all I meant “food” elements. Secondly, the Bible very clearly shows that MAN did not eat animals before the flood. I will have to take a look to see whether there is room for food scavenging of those that already died by animals. Perhaps you are correct, I may not be able to be adamant about animals not eating animals especially fish “kinds.” Good point, perhaps the Bible is only stating this for man alone. I would welcome other comments if someone has studied this out further. In any case, I may stand corrected on this issue by you but hopefully someone else may have an informed opinion on this that we could all learn from. Thank you as always for your gentlemanly approach to this discussions.

    Peter.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  319. EndTimes August 17, 2007 7:26 pm Reply

    Samphire

    Said this on August 17th, 2007 at 1:22am:
    “Maybe we could talk about Haldane’s Dilemma and its implications for (young earth) creation.”
    Nice one, Darling. I suspect that it will pass by unrecognised by all of our creationist friends but one.

    My dear Samphire, there are NO difficulties with Haldane’s Dilemma and YEC. First, we are for sake of argument granting you your time frames and stating that even with the millions of years, you still don’t have enough time. For YEC, obviously evolution will not fly at all in 6000 years. Not a problem for us, it has always been an evolutionary issue and still is. I will get back to darling on the 238 positive selected genes issue perhaps tomorrow or Sunday.

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  320. EndTimes August 17, 2007 7:57 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 16th, 2007 at 9:45pm:

    End Times said, “Creation predicts that genes will show a pattern of descent…”
    Really? Where? How? I don’t see how that flows from creationism at all. I can see why creationists would need to coopt the successes of science, in order to defend their ideology, but not that they ever did or would make this prediction in the absence of evolutionary theory.

    Dear Learned Hand,

    First of all, I am throwing in a definition of kind which is testified to in the Bible thousands of years BEFORE Darwin. 1) those that bring forth. 2) those of the same flesh. Both criteria are mentioned in the Bible. Thus, we look at a lion and tiger and their hybrid called a liger. Are they the same kind of animal? By the first test they are. Second, do they have many aspects of their “flesh” that is in common as well? We can tell fish-kind from man-kind from ape-kind from dog-kind by very simple and very elaborate testing. That really is the central issue of evolution showing a pattern of common descent among all animals throughout all time. Yet to deny that variations happen would be as you have accused me ignorant from a creation point of view. We know that variations occur. No creationist denies that variations happen but that there are limits to its variation.

    To falsify the ToE, all we need to do is show that there are discontinuities in the flesh of one animal to the flesh of its alleged “close relatives.” That is a prediction from creation. If we find flowing patterns of “descent” when we compare the phenotypic results of the genotypes involved, then you can claim that you have falsified creation. (It is a falsifiable and testable theory despite so many learned lawyers such as at the Dove case state it is not.)

    So, we are back again to the micro/macro discussion. lagamorph commented on this previously on what are the limits. I will use the recent direct comparison of chromosome 22 in the chimp with chromosome 21 in man. In this study, the phenotypic expression of the genetic material was 83% DIFFERENT. I would have to agree with the conclusion in this study that man and chimp are DIFFERENT, just as creationists have spoken. Where is the arbitrary line drawn on what is the same flesh and what is different flesh. In the end analysis, 83% DIFFERENT would appear to be within the domain of DIFFERENT flesh and DIFFERENT kinds. Thus as Ernst Mayr has pointed out, it is the phenotype that is selected, not the genotype. Thus, we need to get past the genotype comparisons only which is pretty much where we have been the last 30 years or so and get into more phenotypic differences which we have little at this time. Creation predicts that you will have many more results in direct comparative studies of this type just as the Bible has stated for thousands of years.

    Searching out what are “kinds” and what are not is an interesting topic of research which will never be funded by evolutionists, but creationists can read their results just as well in trying to prove comment ancestry in trying to validate the ToE. Thus with the chimp/man phenotypic expression study, so far, my definition still stands. But it really is not MY definition, it came from the Bible 6000 years ago.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  321. defendtruth August 17, 2007 8:20 pm Reply

    I wasn’t sure about the formatting in wordpress and thought it had auto formatting once I pasted in my reply, but it doesn’t so I fixed my post and added html tags for paragraphs and line breaks. Would you mind replacing my post and checking to make sure the tags I added will work in wordpress before posting. Thanks!

    First off, I have been following this blog for quite some time and I don’t normally post on forums, but I feel somewhat compelled to jump in. I hope some of you will welcome me even though I am quite certain several of you will strongly disagree with me since I don’t believe in the religion of evolutionism and I freely speak my mind about it. However, I will try my best to treat everyone with respect even though we may disagree and hopefully you will do the same. I am not going to give you my life story, but I am 36yrs old and I have been married to my beautiful wife for 14years I have two kids a boy 7 and a daughter 5 so my response time will be limited due to family, Church, and school obligations.

    Ok on to a few points and thoughts now I am not a PhD Scientist not that it matters anyone can take the time to study and have an opinion on Creation vs. Evolutionism controversy even though some seem to think differently (I keep seeing this attitude of don’t talk science to me unless you have a PhD), which is fine everyone has a right to believe what they want, but I find it odd though how some equate knowledge, intelligence and truth with the number of degrees a person may have under their belt. Knowledge can be gained several ways besides just going to college so I find the whole argument that Kent Hovind lacks the proper degree therefore he doesn’t understand evolutionary science ludicrous for many reasons. If proper knowledge about evolutionism is only gained from going to college than why do the natural history museums, libraries, science centers and educational shows like Nova, Discovery Channel, and the History Channel etc. waste their time trying to educate the people? I work with some (not all) well educated people in my job some holding advanced degrees, but somehow still seem to lack logic and common sense in their thinking process and for the most part to be honest are not very bright, but at the same time I know several people who have never stepped foot on a college campus who are highly intelligent individuals who have gained the knowledge they need on their own can run circles around some of the PhD’s I work with. Take a look at Bill Gates for example he did not even come close to finishing college, but managed to change the computer world, and I think he is doing pretty well for himself last time I checked.

    My point is while education can be a good thing and I have benefited from going to college I have a few degrees as well such as an Associates Degree in Technology and a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems and I am now working on my Masters in Theology. The down side however is the emphasis society seems to put on everyone to get a college education in order to be an intellectual member of society is overrated in my opinion compared to knowledge gained through experience and self-study. For example, when I finished Associate degree I thought it would drastically change my life somehow, but found myself to be the exact same person with just more book knowledge so I thought it was because I was lacking a Bachelors degree and felt if I completed this degree it would change things, but after graduating I actually had a bit of an empty feeling and felt a little disappointed because I had bought into the lies the world was selling about higher education. I am not saying College is a waste of time or that a person shouldn’t go it did help to open up doors, but I wish I would have went for different reasons like I am now just for the joy of learning and not for the piece of paper they hand you when you finish. I learned far more on the job in the first 6months compared to my entire time in college. So how do you know every book he has studied since college and how many time have been there every time he was researching various subjects? This is what I do notice about some people who have gone to college they become more arrogant because they began to think they are smarter than anyone else with less college education than them.

    So the people who keep bringing up Kent Hovinds educational background on this blog are doing nothing more than trying to distract from the real issue at hand which is the theory of evolutionism is fraud and it doesn’t take someone with a PhD degree to figure this out it just takes logic and common sense and the willingness to listen. Lastly, I lead a Creation vs. Evolutionism class at my church and I use several different sources for class materials such as CSE, AIG and ICR materials for my class and when I have shown Kent’s seminars to people in my class the one’s who were strong believers in evolution, but came to class with and open mind and willingness listen became completely unbrainwashed in the first 30min of one of his video’s playing it was the most amazing thing to watch. I had another person tell after watching one of the videos I was showing he caught himself wanting to argue with Kent the whole time while watching the video because at the time he strongly disagreed with what Kent was saying, but after going home and researching it for himself found he was unable to argue against what logic, common sense and the light of conscience was telling him evolution is nothing but a lie he had been deceived to believe through school plain and simple. Some in the end some will choose to embrace their Creator God and some would rather believe the lie of evolutionism rather than give up authority and control of their life to God and for those folks all you can do is show them the evidence and pray for them. However, I do have a choice and I have no doubt in my mind God exists and one day I will see him face to face just as sure as I am that I will go home tonight and embrace my wife and kids and thank him for the blessing they are to me by giving them a big hug!

    1 Corinthians 8:1
    Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth (KJV)

    Romans 1:20 (KJV)
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

  322. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 8:41 pm Reply

    And DTODD, if you want a good debate, lets consider something…

    If someone says something improper, and you snap back, he make excuses. He won’t say, “Away with your standard!” You, he, and everyone else follow one standard of how to speak to the other. How would that evolve? How would nature cause man to think as one? Blind chance? I have to laugh at that one. I would like to see your response, so please send it :)

    I have always wondered what an evolutionist would have as an answer to this…

  323. BlessedOneOfGod August 17, 2007 9:15 pm Reply

    Oh, editor, please change make to makes. Otherwise, he will probably blast me for the problem ;) sorry

  324. Three Crosses