The effects of literalists on origins discussions

[chaoschristian]

Thanks for your reply. Reading your post made me realize where I need to clarify. True God has given us a mind to reason with, however, when Satan pollutes our minds our reason becomes faulty, that is, our reason see God as irrational. Thus because of Satan and sin we may see God as being irrational such as in the case of Joshua 6. If we, through the Holy Spirit, see rational through God's eyes we will see that God is rational.

I didn't mean it to sound as God being illogical, I meant that we may see God as being illogical when we look through the polluted lenses of the sinful nature.

I hope this clears what I was trying to say up.

OK, I could buy a ticket for that train.

 

[Biliskner]

Does anyone have good resources on where this 'school' of literal/indicative interpretation comes from? It strikes me as a fairly recent phenomenon and I would like to study its emergence.

Easily fixed.

Textual analysis like one would any part of the Bible:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Hovind is a tax cheat who touts an education PhD from a diploma mill.

I ask you if this is no personal attack, what is?
To make you get a proper feeling about it: You're wrong because you face resembles that of an idiot.
This is very offensive and is NOT a valid argument. also it shows you're out of words.

Answers-In-Genesis is too polite (/cautious) to call him a charleton but they do point out a number of arguments that he uses as being invalid.
AiG Page
cache of AiG page
In general he is an embarassment to Creationists and Christians.

Being polite isn't a virtue? You like insulting?
Can you answer every question of Kent Hovind? If there's one question you can't answer, evolutionism is over, as simple as that. this is a valid scientific method to disaprove something. hope you understand that.

According to whom and by what measure?



http://www.foodreference.com/html/fmilk.html

The milk of a female ass comes closest to human milk than any other domestic animal.​

nsce article

Milk chemistry. We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry. R. E. Sloan, et al., showed that human milk proteins (whey and casein) were much more like macaque milk than donkey milk (Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 1961, 4:47-62).
Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical.

​

maybe I should give you the context

What do you want to compare? Human blood specific gravity is closest to a rabbit or a pig. Human milk is closest to a donkey. It depends on what you want to compare.

your source is only analysing one aspect. how about other aspect? calory? density? Can you reject the claim in blood specific gravity. In fact the transcript I show above is from an evolutionism site. and it can't refute the claim on blood completely. failed to say a word on the calory on donkey's milk.

Evolutionism is spread by censoring evidence against it.

Understanding what a gene does is not required to determine whether or not genes are similar.

The information contained in gene's of a human is so large that they simply haven't finished looking at them in detail. They don't know what the remaining 99% is.

gene similarity indicates we come from the same designer--God.
you can refute this one either

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Did you know who M,T&W were when you claimed I didn't understand GR? Do you know now?

How much time have you spent working out metric tensors, and doing permutations in index notation?

What exactly do you think an inertial frame of reference is?

From Notto: Please show us where Darwin said anything about murdering or eliminating the 'inferior' as necessary.[]
What works of Darwin have you yourself actually read?

You copy and paste from wikipedia or some other source. it's not a valid argument.

The fact you don't know the assumption of GR is a tell tale you understand none of GR.

 

[Biliskner]

Hovind is a tax cheat who touts an education PhD from a diploma mill and repeats arguments that were refuted years before.

So you're throwing the first stone when our Lord Jesus asks “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Jn. 8:7.

It is comments like yours that make a otherwise intelligent debate become a futile bickering amongst Christian Fellowship.

Hovind might have cheated tax but if you read the article in context (wherever you heard that), your wording, phrase and language would not resemble that of the devil's. Mt. 4:6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’“

We are all saved by grace, your degrading comment(s) has(have) no place here.

 

[Biliskner]

People (Gen 6:9) who (Gen 3:6) believe (Gen 45:26) young (Gen 4:24) earth (Gen 1:1) creation (Hab 2:18) sin (Gen 4:7) against (Gen 13:13) God (Gen 1:1) - Biblical proof against Young Earth Creationism

*sigh*

 

[chaoschristian]

Sigh all you want to, but that signature was a DIRECT result of a YEC lifting individual parts of unrelated pieces of scripture to try and prove geocentrism. It was such an amusing absurdity I decided that I would return the favor and show him that if his methodology was taken to its logical conclusion, then scriptural exegesis such as I performed was completely valid.

So, don't be mistaken in thinking I don't know how absurd my signature is, it is absurd to make a statement about bad interpretative methodology.

*sigh*

 

[Deamiter]

Being polite isn't a virtue? You like insulting?
Can you answer every question of Kent Hovind? If there's one question you can't answer, evolutionism is over, as simple as that. this is a valid scientific method to disaprove something. hope you understand that.

This assertion could not be more wrong. You say that "a valid scientific method" requires that every question be answered or something is disproven. This indicates a SEVERE lack of understanding -- so much so that it becomes clear that you have either had no education in hard sciences, or you have rejected the education in favor of your own interpretation of the Bible.

The scientific method NEVER requires that every question be answered. There are always more questions, and always will be. What it requires is that a theory is not DISPROVEN by evidence. Kent Hovind is extremely dishonest just in his arguments about evolution. He wildly distorts science to fit his agenda.

Further, I have found no question he asks or point he makes to be a legitimate claim against evolution, biology, geology, astronomy or ANY field which holds evidence against a YEC interpretation of the scriptures. Even YOUR misrepresentation of "a valid scientific method" (hint: there's only one) doesn't hold up when it comes to Hovind!

maybe I should give you the context

your source is only analysing one aspect. how about other aspect? calory? density? Can you reject the claim in blood specific gravity. In fact the transcript I show above is from an evolutionism site. and it can't refute the claim on blood completely. failed to say a word on the calory on donkey's milk.

Evolutionism is spread by censoring evidence against it.

Again, you've displayed a severe misunderstanding of the field. Why SHOULD calority or specific gravity be the same from one generation to the next? Quite simply, these factors are more dependent on the environment that affects EXPRESSION of the genes. The lysosomes are created directly BY the genes.

What you're doing is similar to comparing the number of moles I have on my leg to the number of moles on some animal's leg. Never mind that moles are strongly affected by the environment so they wouldn't suggest ancestry even if I DID have the same number as a rat!

Maybe evolution is accepted because people recognize that these objections are not based in reality? Certainly someone who rejects common ancestry based on the density of breast milk has at BEST a severe misunderstanding of genetics and gene expression!

The information contained in gene's of a human is so large that they simply haven't finished looking at them in detail. They don't know what the remaining 99% is.

gene similarity indicates we come from the same designer--God.
you can refute this one either

Oddly enough BECAUSE you can't refute it makes it unscientific. I could say the gene similarity indicates that we came from the dirty sock on my floor, and you couldn't refute that either!

No scientists don't understand everything that every gene does. But at every step of the way, what they DO understand has supported a common ancestry model. I find it ironic that you appeal to what we DON'T know as evidence for creationism. All evidence points to evolution and common ancestry NOW, but you go ahead and keep hoping that something new shows up. After over a hundred of years of research, I wouldn't hold my breath, but you're always entitled to hope for the long shot!

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

This assertion could not be more wrong. You say that "a valid scientific method" requires that every question be answered or something is disproven. This indicates a SEVERE lack of understanding -- so much so that it becomes clear that you have either had no education in hard sciences, or you have rejected the education in favor of your own interpretation of the Bible.

The scientific method NEVER requires that every question be answered. There are always more questions, and always will be. What it requires is that a theory is not DISPROVEN by evidence. Kent Hovind is extremely dishonest just in his arguments about evolution. He wildly distorts science to fit his agenda.

Further, I have found no question he asks or point he makes to be a legitimate claim against evolution, biology, geology, astronomy or ANY field which holds evidence against a YEC interpretation of the scriptures. Even YOUR misrepresentation of "a valid scientific method" (hint: there's only one) doesn't hold up when it comes to Hovind!

Remember Hovind isn't just trying to refute evolutionist, he also trying to convert them to the Bible. so more evidence are prefered. evolution is based on circular reasoning. it's already refuted. you don't need more evidence to prove it's wrong. however for someone to take it as a religion, one need to refute every claim he made for a chance to convince him.

Again, you've displayed a severe misunderstanding of the field. Why SHOULD calority or specific gravity be the same from one generation to the next? Quite simply, these factors are more dependent on the environment that affects EXPRESSION of the genes. The lysosomes are created directly BY the genes.

A baby needs a certain amount of Calories to survive. can you survive on milk full of nutritions but null on calory?

What you're doing is similar to comparing the number of moles I have on my leg to the number of moles on some animal's leg. Never mind that moles are strongly affected by the environment so they wouldn't suggest ancestry even if I DID have the same number as a rat!

You're just comparing the similarity in your interest. is that a scientific attitude? you can see Newtonian laws are right in the world you can observe with naked eyes. and you conclude Newtonian laws are always correct. so even if you see some exception with binoculars etc, you stick to Newtonian laws and dismiss SR and GR?

Maybe evolution is accepted because people recognize that these objections are not based in reality? Certainly someone who rejects common ancestry based on the density of breast milk has at BEST a severe misunderstanding of genetics and gene expression!

Evolution is accepted because it's spread using non-scientific means. see how many people accept Nazism Communism Socialism etc. you can make people to accept anything.
If people are education about Creationism half the time they're indoctrinated about evolution. no one would accept evolution.

Oddly enough BECAUSE you can't refute it makes it unscientific. I could say the gene similarity indicates that we came from the dirty sock on my floor, and you couldn't refute that either!

It's not I can't refute it. it's you can't prove. you claim genes are similar yet you can't prove it. why should I refute something you can't prove?

No scientists don't understand everything that every gene does. But at every step of the way, what they DO understand has supported a common ancestry model. I find it ironic that you appeal to what we DON'T know as evidence for creationism. All evidence points to evolution and common ancestry NOW, but you go ahead and keep hoping that something new shows up. After over a hundred of years of research, I wouldn't hold my breath, but you're always entitled to hope for the long shot!

All evidence points to creationism. God make this world in a way to make evolution looks stupid. evolution can't explain why trees are buried upside down crossing several "geologic column" and at the time geologic column came out, there's simply no way to back it up. all the "theory" is based on circular reasoning. and radiometric dating is based on the assumption geologic column is right. what kind of a "theory" is this?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So you're throwing the first stone when our Lord Jesus asks “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Jn. 8:7.

No, actually ThaiDuykhang cast the first stone. Numenor accurately labeled Hovind as a charlaton and ThaiDuykhang accused him of name calling. I was merely pointing out that Numenor was accurate.

That something like that occured was actually not too hard to discern from my post, next time I suggest you read back thread before making acusations.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

ThaiDuykhang wrote:

Robert the Pilegrim wrote:

Hovind is a tax cheat who touts an education PhD from a diploma mill.​

I ask you if this is no personal attack, what is?
To make you get a proper feeling about it: You're wrong because you face resembles that of an idiot.
This is very offensive and is NOT a valid argument. also it shows you're out of words.
​

You accused Numinor of name calling, I pointed out that Charlaten was an accurate label for Hovind. That isn't a personal attack, it is providing relevant data to prove a point.

Unlike your insult, the fact that Hovind touts himself as a PhD when he received his "degree" from a diploma mill directly bears on the question of his being a charlaton.

Whether or not my face resembles that of an idiot is irrelevant to whether my argument is valid.

ThaiDuykhang wrote:

Robert the Pilegrim wrote:

Answers-In-Genesis is too polite (/cautious) to call him a charleton but they do point out a number of arguments that he uses as being invalid.​

Being polite isn't a virtue?​

Being polite is frequently a good thing, I do my best to be civil, but there are times when calling a spade a spade is necessary.

You like insulting?​

Not really. Do you?

Can you answer every question of Kent Hovind? If there's one question you can't answer, evolutionism is over, as simple as that. this is a valid scientific method to disaprove something. hope you understand that.​

In the early 20th century it was proposed, based on general shape, matching geology and fossils, that the Atlantic Ocean once did not exist, that the western buldge of Africa had rested in the Gulf of Mexico.

There was no possible way for the continents to have moved so the theory was largely rejected.

It wasn't for another 40 years before clues began mounting and 10 or more years after that that it was shown to be true.

Just because all questions aren't answered doesn't mean a theory isn't valid.

Gotta go.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

ThaiDuykhang wrote:

Robert the Pilegrim wrote:

Hovind is a tax cheat who touts an education PhD from a diploma mill.​

I ask you if this is no personal attack, what is?
To make you get a proper feeling about it: You're wrong because you face resembles that of an idiot.
This is very offensive and is NOT a valid argument. also it shows you're out of words.

​

You accused Numinor of name calling, I pointed out that Charlaten was an accurate label for Hovind. That isn't a personal attack, it is providing relevant data to prove a point.

Unlike your insult, the fact that Hovind touts himself as a PhD when he received his "degree" from a diploma mill directly bears on the question of his being a charlaton.

Whether or not my face resembles that of an idiot is irrelevant to whether my argument is valid.

You know whether you look like an idiot is irrelevent to the discussion then why care where Hovind got his diploma?

ThaiDuykhang wrote:

Robert the Pilegrim wrote:

Answers-In-Genesis is too polite (/cautious) to call him a charleton but they do point out a number of arguments that he uses as being invalid.​

Being polite isn't a virtue?​

Being polite is frequently a good thing, I do my best to be civil, but there are times when calling a spade a spade is necessary.

You like insulting?​

Not really. Do you?

Can you answer every question of Kent Hovind? If there's one question you can't answer, evolutionism is over, as simple as that. this is a valid scientific method to disaprove something. hope you understand that.​

In the early 20th century it was proposed, based on general shape, matching geology and fossils, that the Atlantic Ocean once did not exist, that the western buldge of Africa had rested in the Gulf of Mexico.

There was no possible way for the continents to have moved so the theory was largely rejected.

It wasn't for another 40 years before clues began mounting and 10 or more years after that that it was shown to be true.

Just because all questions aren't answered doesn't mean a theory isn't valid.

Gotta go.

Calling a spade a spade? Do you know what I'd like to call you? when you think you swear and insult here, don't ever think others can't. I can insult in more ways than you but I won't insult for that's never Christian.

How continents looks like millions of years ago is never proved. it can't be proved as there're never millions of years ago. Go telling others evolution/big bang/continental drift is proved and you're lying.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No, actually ThaiDuykhang cast the first stone. Numenor accurately labeled Hovind as a charlaton and ThaiDuykhang accused him of name calling. I was merely pointing out that Numenor was accurate.

That something like that occured was actually not too hard to discern from my post, next time I suggest you read back thread before making acusations.

Who cast the first stone? it's Numenor who accused Hovind first. numenor believe he's without sin.
If you think calling Hovind Chalatan is OK, can I call you all thieves? everyone has stolen at least something in his life.

 

[Numenor]

Who cast the first stone? it's Numenor who accused Hovind first. numenor believe he's without sin.
If you think calling Hovind Chalatan is OK, can I call you all thieves? everyone has stolen at least something in his life.

The clincher for me is that even AiG have parted ways with him.

Call me a thief if you like, if you can also tell me what it is I have specifically stolen and who I stole it from.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You know whether you look like an idiot is irrelevent to the discussion then why care where Hovind got his diploma?

Looks are irrelevant to the validity of an argument.

Proclaiming oneself to be a PhD is to encourage others to think one has a good formal education in a subject germain to the issue being discussed. When the PhD is not germain, and in fact comes from a bogus school that is a dishonest act.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

ThaiDuykhang wrote:

Robert the Pilegrim

Did you know who M,T&W were when you claimed I didn't understand GR? Do you know now?

How much time have you spent working out metric tensors, and doing permutations in index notation?

What exactly do you think an inertial frame of reference is?
​

You copy and paste from wikipedia or some other source. it's not a valid argument.

The fact you don't know the assumption of GR is a tell tale you understand none of GR.​

I have to ask again, where / how did you learn about General Relativity?

I want to know the source of your certainty that

GR assumes either [the Earth or the Sun] can be considered immobile. either can be taken as an enertia frame since they both only under effects of gravity
​

is correct, a certainty that allows you to call me a liar with such ease.

I would expect somebody who had a formal education to be able to guess that M, T & W are Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, even though a search of Amazon indicates they have added coauthors to the more recent editions of their classic text.

Further the fact that you don't indicate familiarity with index notation or metric tensors suggests that your education was less than rigorous.

I also repeat my request that you explain what you think an inertial frame of reference is.

If anybody is interested, my formal education comes from a fairly rigorous introductory course using, as I alluded to earlier, Ohanian.

It was 20+ years ago, so doing actually calculations in index notation or using metric tensors is beyond me now. For anything beyond the basics I do go looking for reliable web pages to refresh my memory and catch up with developments.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

your source is only analysing one aspect. how about other aspect? calory? density? Can you reject the claim in blood specific gravity.

Density and caloric content are determined to some extent by diet, whereas the make-up of the protiens are directly determined by genes. Drawing conclusions from iffy information and clinging to it when far more definative data is available is not a good way to understand the physical universe.

The information contained in gene's of a human is so large that they simply haven't finished looking at them in detail. They don't know what the remaining 99% is.

No, they don't know what the remaining 99% does, which is entirely different and irrelevent to the question of whether or not human DNA is similar to Chimp DNA.

gene similarity indicates we come from the same designer--God.

Similarity between working genes could be explained by a designer, though it doesn't rule out little green men from Alpha Centauri. OTOH similarity between broken genes, e.g.GULO in the production of Vitamin C, nonfunctional portions of the genome, nonfunctional changes to genes, e.g. cytochrome-c, are only or better explained by evolution.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

The clincher for me is that even AiG have parted ways with him.

Call me a thief if you like, if you can also tell me what it is I have specifically stolen and who I stole it from.

You can say you've never stolen anything? for example: toys?
You have never lusted after a girl?
Everyone here have sinned, as simple as that.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Looks are irrelevant to the validity of an argument.

Proclaiming oneself to be a PhD is to encourage others to think one has a good formal education in a subject germain to the issue being discussed. When the PhD is not germain, and in fact comes from a bogus school that is a dishonest act.

Even if Hovind were a illiterate, you still had to refute him point after point.

If you justify personal attack, it shows you're not very intelligent.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I learned GR in college. how about you?