So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[Guy1]

Not even Kent Hovind. Take a look for yourselves:

Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not like that!) - YouTube

I just figured I'd share this with everyone.

 

[SkyWriting]

I just figured ...

I think you figured wrong.
A "Creationist" is a person who believes in the God of the Christian scriptures.

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.

Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

God created man pretty much in the present form? 40% said Yes.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

 

[Guy1]

I think you figured wrong.
A "Creationist" is a person who believes in the God of the Christian scriptures.

Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Just watch the video.

 

[Golden Yak]

Probably should've read something like 'everyone accepts evolution as long as you don't call it evolution.' Nothing about the vid says that people don't really believe in creationism.

 

[verysincere]

I think you figured wrong.
A "Creationist" is a person who believes in the God of the Christian scriptures.

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.

Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

God created man pretty much in the present form? 40% said Yes.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

1) "Creationist" used to simply mean "one who believes God created everything". But due to the growing influence (and especially the notariety) of the Young Earth Creationist movement, the general public now tends to assume that a "creationist" is a Young Earth Creationist.

2) As a result, most people assume a creationist believes:

* the earth is 6000 years old
* evolution is evil
* the Big Bang Theory is evil
* Noah's Flood was GLOBAL

3) Matthew 19:4 simply says that God created men and women long ago "in the beginning" of humanity. It doesn't say how long ago that was. It doesn't say whether that "beginning" was the same as the beginning of the universe or billions of years later. It says nothing about the processes involved or how long it took or how many intermediate forms have been linked "the dust of the ground" with humanity.

4) As to a Gallup poll finding that 40% of Americans [or whatever, I didn't bother with the link] believe that God created humanity in its present form/morphology, why is that significant? I'm not sure what point you are making with that.

Obviously, what 40% of the population thinks about ANY question or topic is irrelevant to whether something is or isn't true.

So I'm curious what conclusion or general message your post was meant to convey.

.

 

[verysincere]

So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

Not even Kent Hovind. Take a look for youselves:

Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not like that!) - YouTube

I just figured I'd share this with everyone.

Great video! Thanks for sharing it!

I often push my anti-evolution Christian brethren to explain ring species without involving evolutionary processes. I ALWAYS get silence. But now I've got video clips which demonstrate that Kent Hovind has become an evolutionist!

And that's really something.


.

 

[Guy1]

Great video! Thanks for sharing it!

I often push my anti-evolution Christian brethren to explain ring species without involving evolutionary processes. I ALWAYS get silence. But now I've got video clips which demonstrate that Kent Hovind has become an evolutionist!

And that's really something.


.

I'm sure a video like this will get some new discussion out of everyone or, funnier still, none whatsoever as every creationist on this forums watches and subsequently ignores it so as to not give their opposition an advantage (In their minds.)

 

[verysincere]

I'm sure a video like this will get some new discussion out of everyone or, funnier still, none whatsoever as every creationist on this forums watches and subsequently ignores it so as to not give their opposition an advantage (In their minds.)

I think there is some other video on Youtube focusing on Ken Ham's BARAMINOLOGY EXHIBIT at his museum. I think it was the horse chart that Potholer54 shows in the video. I always cite Ham's baraminology theory of some 200 years of "diversification within each kind" which allegedly followed the flood as Ham's version of EVOLUTION.

Of course, the amazing thing about Ham's "baraminology evolution" (evolution within each biblical KIND) is that Ham's evolution is HYPER-SPEED faster! Ham's evolution outpaces the actual theory of evolution by a factor of millions!

So I find it fascinating: Ham will deny that theistic evolution is ever possible (God using millions of years to diversify life on earth). But Ham is fine with claiming that his kind of God-driven evolution which takes only 200 years.

Now would any of you Young Earth Creationists out there like to explain to me why the slow evolution idea is wrong but the super fast evolution idea is true? (I thought one of your big arguments against evolution is that even with millions of years to take place, the changes wouldn't have enough time to happen?)

So perhaps I should contact Potholer54 and suggest that he should append his "Kent Hovind becomes an evolutionist!" video to also include "Ken Ham becomes a hyper-speed theistic evolutionst!"

 

[Guy1]

I think there is some other video on Youtube focusing on Ken Ham's BARAMINOLOGY EXHIBIT at his museum. I think it was the horse chart that Potholer54 shows in the video. I always cite Ham's baraminology theory of some 200 years of "diversification within each kind" which allegedly followed the flood as Ham's version of EVOLUTION.

Yes as I recall the model they showed required speciation to occur at such a rate it would kill off all the offspring, effectively sterilizing the animals that survived on the arc.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Hey, can anyone synopsise the video for those of us with poor connections please?

 

[Guy1]

Hey, can anyone synopsise the video for those of us with poor connections please?

The abridged version: A fervent creationist accepts every single facet of evolution but decides to call it "Change" or "Variation" instead, and all the taxonomic categories "Kind" as opposed to "Phylum, genera, species, kingdom, etc."

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The abridged version: A fervent creationist accepts every single facet of evolution but decides to call it "Change" or "Variation" instead, and all the taxonomic categories "Kind" as opposed to "Phylum, genera, species, kingdom, etc."

Ah.

Well, kinda painted themselves into a corner there, huh?

 

[BobRyan]

No one??

well...there is always "God" -- Exodus 20:8-11 and in Romans 1 apparently Paul thinks God still holds that same opinion.

In Rev 14:6-7 that whole thing does not change a bit.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Guy1]

Ah.

Well, kinda painted themselves into a corner there, huh?

Not really. I, like the man in the video, am willing to call this whatever they want. They already went so far as to agree with everything I had to say, so It's only fair that I make an effort to accommodate them by using their terms.

No one??

well...there is always "God" -- Exodus 20:8-11 and in Romans 1 apparently Paul thinks God still holds that same opinion.

In Rev 14:6-7 that whole thing does not change a bit.

in Christ,

Bob

What are you going on about?

 

[BobRyan]

I like the storytelling in OP that tries to invent the idea that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse -- just "not so-s you would notice".

LOL!!

The problem is that the genome does not add in new genes over time - the prokaryote does not become a eukaryote, the amoeba does not "acquire the genes" to become a multicelled animal etc --- and the ancient tree dwelling hyrax no matter how much time given - does not become a horse.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Guy1]

I like the storytelling in OP that tries to invent the idea that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse -- just "not so-s you would notice".

LOL!!

The problem is that the genome does not add in new genes over time - the prokaryote does not become a eukaryote, the amoeba does not "acquire the genes" to become a multicelled animal etc --- and the ancient tree dwelling hyrax no matter how much time given - does not become a horse.

in Christ,

Bob

Ok that statement of yours is really schizophrenic. If you could just narrow down your point to something more concrete. Are you saying that somehow amoebas turn into horses, or that horses turn into a hyrax? ...

 

[verysincere]

Ok that statement of yours is really schizophrenic. If you could just narrow down your point to something more concrete. Are you saying that somehow amoebas turn into horses, or that horses turn into a hyrax? ...

Yes, I was going to say that the statement sounded a little bit creepy but I'm leaving room for the possibility that it was meant to be some kind of a sarcastic "summary" of what the theory of evolution claims?

But what is always interesting to me is how such statements sounds like they could be direct quotes from Kent Hovind or Ken Ham (the kinds that they make to friendly audiences at Christian conferences and church pulpits.) One thing I will say for the old days (1960's and 1970's) when I was an enthusiastic Young Earth Creationist, we got our science wrong most of the time but we didn't yet have the tired mantras and the trivial slogans of the Hams and Hovinds. (Yes, we had Duane Gish and The Gish Gallop, but the mockery and edgier sarcasm hadn't gotten started yet. Or at least not all that much.) I'm not saying that in those days we were any "better" in our science OR in our scriptures. But I think there were higher standards of honesty, professionalism (kind of), and sincerity. (We were sincerely wrong. I can't always say that of the leaders today. It has turned into a very lucrative industry and money always seems to change the landscape.)




.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

No one??

well...there is always "God" -- Exodus 20:8-11 and in Romans 1 apparently Paul thinks God still holds that same opinion.

In Rev 14:6-7 that whole thing does not change a bit.

in Christ,

Bob

Yeah... no, the guy who determined the fundamental principals of the universe doesn't believe in that creationism gibberish either.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

The problem is that the genome does not add in new genes over time -

Bob

Um... yes it does. Want a list of new genes that did not exist in any organism 60 years ago?

Nylon-eating bacteria for instance.

 

[RickG]

I like the storytelling in OP that tries to invent the idea that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse -- just "not so-s you would notice".

LOL!!

The problem is that the genome does not add in new genes over time - the prokaryote does not become a eukaryote, the amoeba does not "acquire the genes" to become a multicelled animal etc --- and the ancient tree dwelling hyrax no matter how much time given - does not become a horse.

in Christ,

Bob

Did I miss something? I watched the entire video and didn't see or hear any statement about an amoeba turning into a horse.

But then again, explain the fossil record in the geologic column without evolution. Why are there no rabbits in the Cambrian? Look at the Cambrian explosion and the geologically rapid of development and diversification of life. Why did all that happen in the last billion years rather than the previous 3 billion years? Consider a hostile environment that lacked an oxygen atmosphere, ozone layer and a few snowball earth events that pretty much kept the evolution of life at bay.