Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Kent Hovind does an OK job of packaging YEC doctrine in an accessible form. However, he has been shown to use questionable arguments, even after being challenged on them. I think we (YECs) need to be extra careful to try to always be accurate.
He reacts against the status quo in academia. In the case of evolution, he talks about the negatives that the theory has caused, and does not really give any room for a believer to hold the theory. To me, he goes too far.
He also claims to subscribe to some pretty radical views regarding the chruch and government. These claims seem to many to be ones of convenience to avoid taxes, etc. At best, I see them as a distraction Satan has used against him. At worst, he has serious integrity problems.
-lee-
We aren't gonna respect a dentist as an evolutionary biologist UNTIL he publishes a respect work. WE EARN RESPECT. He earned yours because you pat each other on the back, that's not fair to you and it's not fair anyone. The Heaven's Gate Cult patted each other on the back to death.
Pastor Kevin, when you say "we can't judge until we've read and heard everything he has to say" it's just a muddying of the waters, a smoke screen to get out of accountability. Stay with the argument please and make a stand for what you believe in. Don't let that stand rule you though. If Evolution was superceded by something better tomorrow or if every suddenly pointed towards YEC I'd change, I'D CHANGE and it'd be the most respectful, upstanding thing I could think of ever doing. WHO CARES ON THE WEB IF YOU SAY YOU MIGHT BE WRONG? hehehehehe Welcome to anonymity, a powers worst enemy.
Still praying
Pats on the back... Not a fair conclusion. You go to far.
It's interesting you as well as other TEs say to look at all the evidence that points to evolution, but when I say that we can't make a judgement about what is in a persons mind you turn the other direction and say we don't need to hear all of what a person has to say. Perhaps the person has do ample work on the subject, but hasn't decide to write in a "respected peer" journal. Seems to me to be a double standard.
Pats on the back... Not a fair conclusion. You go to far.
It's interesting you as well as other TEs say to look at all the evidence that points to evolution, but when I say that we can't make a judgement about what is in a persons mind you turn the other direction and say we don't need to hear all of what a person has to say. Perhaps the person has do ample work on the subject, but hasn't decide to write in a "respected peer" journal. Seems to me to be a double standard.
So what if I said I disproved the Big Bang, but decided not to publish the results in a peer reviewed journal. However, when I give information about my theory, everything doesn't add up (facts are wrong, major gaps in theory, etc...). I think it would be safe to say that people would have every right to assume that my theory is bunk, and that I really know nothing about the BB.
When people who say they've disproved evolution spout off incorrect things about evolution, then it's clear that they don't understand evolution. I really don't see why that's so hard to understand. Just like how Hovind says evolution deals with 5 topics (cosmology, chemistry, etc...), it's obvious he has no knowledge about evolution. We don't need to look into a person's soul to see if they understand science, we just need to look into a person's posting history.
__________________ Entropy is driving the universe toward "heat death" --- Jesus is the force behind the Strong Nuclear Force that keeps the protons together - Colossians 1:17. - AV1611VET
Pats on the back... Not a fair conclusion. You go to far.
It's interesting you as well as other TEs say to look at all the evidence that points to evolution, but when I say that we can't make a judgement about what is in a persons mind you turn the other direction and say we don't need to hear all of what a person has to say. Perhaps the person has do ample work on the subject, but hasn't decide to write in a "respected peer" journal. Seems to me to be a double standard.
HE SHOULD WANT TO WRITE A RESPECTED PAPER! If he knows enough, and wants to do the work of the Lord, then he should get his evidence out there IMMEDIATELY for everyone to read and come to the Glory of that which is God. He should want to do it before an Evolutionist would for that very reason. He hasn't, a quick search and 30 minutes spent and nothing comes up.... He is failing you with everyday he doesn't write the paper HE KNOWS HE NEEDS TO WRITE TO GET TO SOME OF US. He knows this Pastor Kevin, hands down knows it.
The problem is, he also knows that the evidence isn't strong enough TO PUT HIS NAME TO IT. So he does what so many people do, he speaks loud in front of people that ALREADY AGREE WITH HIM and becomes a rally point of people PATTING EACH OTHER ON THE BACK. It happens everywhere you go. Cindy Sheehan with her Democrats, Bill O'Reilly with his Republicans, it happens WHEN YOU "PICK A CHURCH." Schisms are bred this way.
For the most part people are so busy finding people that agree with them that they end up doing themselves a HUGE justice and NO ONE ELSE. It's selfishness to a T to think YOU have all the right answers and support it(YOURSELF) by picking what YOU want to hear, where YOU want to hear it, and how it will effect YOUR life. Everyone should stride to challenge themselves, hold what they believe to be true up to evidence and let it be weighed. Peer review does this. It isn't a bunch of scientists patting each other on the back. It's a PUBLISHED WORK where other scientists can read it and without knowing that other scientist, without working with that scientist, offer up contradictory evidence against it. It's a scientist publishing something to the best of his knowledge and letting his colleagues put MANY MINDS to it. It isn't one man, on a mission finding people that will pat him on the back.
If someone found an Ark they would be a very rich person. If someone found absolute proof of a Young Earth they would be a very rich person. These rich people don't exist and for a very good reason, what they need to get rich DOESN'T EXIST.
Patting on the back stands.
Last edited by TEBeliever; 18th July 2006 at 11:12 AM.
HE SHOULD WANT TO WRITE A RESPECTED PAPER! If he knows enough, and wants to do the work of the Lord, then he should get his evidence out there IMMEDIATELY for everyone to read and come to the Glory of that which is God. He should want to do it before an Evolutionist would for that very reason. He hasn't, a quick search and 30 minutes spent and nothing comes up.... He is failing you with everyday he doesn't write the paper HE KNOWS HE NEEDS TO WRITE TO GET TO SOME OF US. He knows this Pastor Kevin, hands down knows it.
The problem is, he also knows that the evidence isn't strong enough TO PUT HIS NAME TO IT. So he does what so many people do, he speaks loud in front of people that ALREADY AGREE WITH HIM and becomes a rally point of people PATTING EACH OTHER ON THE BACK. It happens everywhere you go. Cindy Sheehan with her Democrats, Bill O'Reilly with his Republicans, it happens WHEN YOU "PICK A CHURCH." Schisms are bred this way.
For the most part people are so busy finding people that agree with them that they end up doing themselves a HUGE justice and NO ONE ELSE. It's selfishness to a T to think YOU have all the right answers and support it(YOURSELF) by picking what YOU want to hear, where YOU want to hear it, and how it will effect YOUR life. Everyone should stride to challenge themselves, hold what they believe to be true up to evidence and let it be weighed. Peer review does this. It isn't a bunch of scientists patting each other on the back. It's a PUBLISHED WORK where other scientists can read it and without knowing that other scientist, without working with that scientist, offer up contradictory evidence against it. It's a scientist publishing something to the best of his knowledge and letting his colleagues put MANY MINDS to it. It isn't one man, on a mission finding people that will pat him on the back.
If someone found an Ark they would be a very rich person. If someone found absolute proof of a Young Earth they would be a very rich person. These rich people don't exist and for a very good reason, what they need to get rich DOESN'T EXIST.
Patting on the back stands.
Sorry I didn't hear that from the YELLING OF THE FIRST SENTENCE. lol
Linear Mode
