Are you OEC or YEC?

[InspiredHome]

After reading up on the indoctrination of evolution (as well as the sex ed thing) I've decided not to enroll my children in public school. I'm caught between homeschooling and private Christian schooling though I'd have to be careful. Even the church nowadays is compromising and letting in evolution and millions of years.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I know about Rev. Hovind. He's great, isn't he? I like his presentation, too!

REV. Hovind?????

 

[Lenora56]

As far as I know, he's not a reverend. Then again, I have accidentally put the wrong title on someone before. Maybe that's the case.

REV. Hovind?????

 

[mark kennedy]

I had never heard of Hovind untill I started coming on here. I watched a couple of his videos and listened to his radio program a couple of times and really have no problem with him. He was a biology teacher for years and turned his teaching of basic biology into a ministry. I was called a little Hovind a couple of times and I had no idea what they were talking about. I think it may well of been that he has reached a large number of people with reasons for faith and evolutionists just don't like that.

I toyed with the idea of progressive creationism for a while but these voices are not satisfied with compromise. They want a wholesale sell out to the world's version of natural history and that is simply not going to happen with me. Ten times Genesis states, 'And God said', ten times it states, 'after their kind'. After having studied the Bible at length and read a ton of evolutionist literature I have come to the conclusion that the Bible and science dovetail perfectly. The evolutionary tree diagram is a myth and Christians do well to be highly skeptical of both evolutionary arguments and psuedo-christian compromises with it.

The Bible is a history book that is the living wittness of God intervening in the affairs of men. It started when he spoke the worlds into existance and will only end at the consumation of the ages when He creates the new heavens and the new earth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[The Lady Kate]

I had never heard of Hovind untill I started coming on here. I watched a couple of his videos and listened to his radio program a couple of times and really have no problem with him. He was a biology teacher for years and turned his teaching of basic biology into a ministry. I was called a little Hovind a couple of times and I had no idea what they were talking about. I think it may well of been that he has reached a large number of people with reasons for faith and evolutionists just don't like that.

I am a little more familiar with Hovind, and am quite disappointed with him of several levels... He doesn't say where he was a biology teacher, so his credentials in that area cannot be checked. He goes by the title of Dr. Hovind, having obtained his Ph.D from Patriot University...which is not, shall we say, much of an academic institution...

He certainly does reach people...he is charismatic, if nothing else... but what is his message? I've heard much of his teachings, and his "Challenge to prove evolution true," and have found it so full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies that I cannot in good conscience put much stock in anything he says.

Even other, more mainstream, Creationist ministries such as AiG or ICR have distanced themselves from Hovind.

...Which is why I practically choked on my Dr. Pepper when I heard him addressed as "Rev. Hovind..."

He is exactly the sort who, in the long run, will do more harm than good to the creationist movement... and, God forbid, to Christianity by extention.

I toyed with the idea of progressive creationism for a while but these voices are not satisfied with compromise. They want a wholesale sell out to the world's version of natural history and that is simply not going to happen with me. Ten times Genesis states, 'And God said', ten times it states, 'after their kind'. After having studied the Bible at length and read a ton of evolutionist literature I have come to the conclusion that the Bible and science dovetail perfectly.

Well, you've studied the Bible, decided what it means, studied the natural world, decided what that means, and found a way to reconcile them as we all know they must. Certainly nobody's denying you the right to do that...

The evolutionary tree diagram is a myth and Christians do well to be highly skeptical of both evolutionary arguments and psuedo-christian compromises with it.

Bold words...

The Bible is a history book that is the living wittness of God intervening in the affairs of men. It started when he spoke the worlds into existance and will only end at the consumation of the ages when He creates the new heavens and the new earth.

The Bible is history books... and so much more. Let none of us ever make the mistake of trying to pigeonhole it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Upon you as well,
Kate

 

[mark kennedy]

I am a little more familiar with Hovind, and am quite disappointed with him of several levels... He doesn't say where he was a biology teacher, so his credentials in that area cannot be checked. He goes by the title of Dr. Hovind, having obtained his Ph.D from Patriot University...which is not, shall we say, much of an academic institution

Like I said I know very little about the guy and I actually fell asleep trying to listen to one of his free seminars. It sounds like he is some kind of a Bible school product and that's fine, I just don't know that much about him.

He certainly does reach people...he is charismatic, if nothing else... but what is his message? I've heard much of his teachings, and his "Challenge to prove evolution true," and have found it so full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies that I cannot in good conscience put much stock in anything he says

Those are pretty serious things to accuse someone of, I have heard some things like that said about creation scientists as well. I may have to track down some of his stuff and get back to you on this.

Even other, more mainstream, Creationist ministries such as AiG or ICR have distanced themselves from Hovind

I'll have to take your word for that, I never seen him mentioned there and they tend to like professional scientists on those sites.

Well, you've studied the Bible, decided what it means, studied the natural world, decided what that means, and found a way to reconcile them as we all know they must. Certainly nobody's denying you the right to do that...

Well, it took a while but there is nothing in the genetics side of TOE that is inconsistant with a literal reading of Genesis. The Darwinian side is pretty much philosophy and supposition so when people ask me if I believe in TOE I sepearate universal descent from modern genetics. They want you to swallow it whole which is completly uncalled for.

Bold words...

It my one major problem with evolution and I can accept most everything else. I draw the line at independant creation vs. universal descent since universal descent has no genetic basis, in my opinion that is.

The Bible is history books... and so much more. Let none of us ever make the mistake of trying to pigeonhole it.

Indeed! What is more we don't get a lot of details on what the original creation consisted of that translates into modern scientific language. It does make a couple of things clear though, Adam was independantly created and living creatures reproduce according to 'kinds'.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited to add:

Wow! I popped onto AIG and did a Hovind search, they had a whole page devoted to answering K. Hovind by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati. I was pretty supprised by the sheer length of it and the number of things they were taking issue with.

 

[WannaWitness]

As far as I know, he's not a reverend. Then again, I have accidentally put the wrong title on someone before. Maybe that's the case.

Actually, he's more of a teacher. So.... I'll just call him.... KENT HOVIND. I don't know. I just called him "reverend" because on the DVDs I watched him on, he really broke out into sermon!!! Oh, well -- guess that doesn't make him a reverend. I made a little "boo-boo" -- as the old saying goes: "to err is human!"

 

[Lenora56]

Yep! Everybody errs!

Actually, he's more of a teacher. So.... I'll just call him.... KENT HOVIND. I don't know. I just called him "reverend" because on the DVDs I watched him on, he really broke out into sermon!!! Oh, well -- guess that doesn't make him a reverend. I made a little "boo-boo" -- as the old saying goes: "to err is human!"

 

[The Lady Kate]

Like I said I know very little about the guy and I actually fell asleep trying to listen to one of his free seminars. It sounds like he is some kind of a Bible school product and that's fine, I just don't know that much about him.

Well, it's always a good idea to consider the source. Hovind's pitch sounds good, but he's pretty much discredited. It's really not worth using him as a source when debating evoution... Especially over on the open forums.

Mentioning his name over there is the CF equivalent to putting on a Dunce cap.

Those are pretty serious things to accuse someone of, I have heard some things like that said about creation scientists as well. I may have to track down some of his stuff and get back to you on this.

Good idea. Always check for yourself.

I'll have to take your word for that, I never seen him mentioned there and they tend to like professional scientists on those sites.

believe me... there's a reason for that.

Well, it took a while but there is nothing in the genetics side of TOE that is inconsistant with a literal reading of Genesis. The Darwinian side is pretty much philosophy and supposition so when people ask me if I believe in TOE I sepearate universal descent from modern genetics. They want you to swallow it whole which is completly uncalled for.

Well, like any scientific theory, the facts support the philosophy, and the philosophy explains the facts.

It my one major problem with evolution and I can accept most everything else. I draw the line at independant creation vs. universal descent since universal descent has no genetic basis, in my opinion that is.

Well, there's no denying that just about every living thing on the planet is genetically similar (at least a lttle) to every other living thing...but that evidence cuts both ways: Common descent or common design...or both?

Indeed! What is more we don't get a lot of details on what the original creation consisted of that translates into modern scientific language. It does make a couple of things clear though, Adam was independantly created and living creatures reproduce according to 'kinds'.

Grace and peace,
Mark

It is clear on that...which is when the whole "literal vs. allegorical" debate begins.

Edited to add:

Wow! I popped onto AIG and did a Hovind search, they had a whole page devoted to answering K. Hovind by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati. I was pretty supprised by the sheer length of it and the number of things they were taking issue with.

If it's the same page I think it is, ("Maintaining Creationist Integrity") you'll notice that AiG is very careful about its language: They never accuse Hovind of anything directly, but as they take issue with almost everything he claims, it's pretty clear...between the lines anyway... that they consider Hovind either untruthful or incompetent.

And Hovind is certainly not incompetent.

 

[Knowledge3]

I remain a OEC. Because I believe that G-d is the Ancient of Days.

 

[jasperbound]

I'm a YEC. I used to be an OEC, but AiG convinced me otherwise. Was that a mistake?

 

[Blue2836]

Hello all, I am a YEC. I've always been very interested in this debate and I've read a few books on it. There is considerable scientific evidence that suggests that, at the very least, our own solar system cannot be any older than 10,000 years.

For one, comets can only survive about 100 trips around our sun because of the rate at which they melt. Even the largest conceivable comet could only survive for 10,000,000 years because every time it nears our sun, it loses a large percentage of its mass. Actually, we don't even know that any comet is older than 3,000 years. Scientists realized that all of this was a problem because there are still comets around nowadays. If our solar system were 4.3 billion years old, all of the comets would have long been gone. So what they came up with is what's known as the Oort cloud theory. They theorized that there must be a gigantic clutter of comets sitting right at the edge of our solar system that constantly replenishes our solar system with new comets. Of course, this cloud has never been observed, nor is there any actual evidence that it is there. Also, like the theory of evolution, the Oort cloud theory is currently represented as fact in textbooks and throughout the scientific community even though there is no actual proof supporting it.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'm a YEC. I used to be an OEC, but AiG convinced me otherwise. Was that a mistake?

Was there a specific article in AiG that you found especially convincing?

 

[InspiredHome]

I find all of AIG to be truthful and convincing.

 

[jasperbound]

Was there a specific article in AiG that you found especially convincing?

I don't remember what specific articles clinched it, although an article about the so-called evolution of bacteria was among them.

 

[mark kennedy]

I found this of interest, they have an impressive list of creation scientists with qualifications evolutionists simply ignore. I was told that creationists have no credibility as scientists and this is just plain false.

Creation Scientists

It supprised me that D.Gish and H.Morris were not given more attention on CF, but I probably shouldn't have been. Most of the arguments encountered are cultural conflicts with very little in the way of substantive and empirical particulars.

 

[EIChief]

There are more YEC then OEC these days beacuse of how science is progressing. We are learning more and more about entropy and how energy decreases over time in a closed system. New theories about comets and studies on Quantum Mechanics are leading more to the YEC as well.

Based on what I know I see the following facts leading to YEC

The Genesis account states that there was a definate beginning and end to creation. This would mean that since God is omniscient and was here before creation, that he must exist outside of time and space.

So although there was a definant start and finish to the creation process, God was able to create it from outside of the constraints. After every creation day it says "the evening and the morning were the next day". Evening and morning result in one day for us, but not for God.

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

In addition, man was created on the 6th day. If God rested for thousands of years on day 7 then this would have posed a problem for Adam, and definately for the Animals. We are not lead to believe that Adam was thousands or millions of years old when Cain and Able were born.

For these and other reasons I will not get into now, I stick by the idea that God created the World "In motion" in 6 literal Earth days which ultimately mean nothing to God. See the differences in these verses.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

God speaks the earth, water and sky into existence, the waters above the earth are said to be what protected man from the sun, and ultimately flooded the earth killing everyone but Noah, and causing post flood man to live shorter lives because this protection was gone.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

In these verses the water and earth are bringing forth life. This is the start of the Micorevolutionary process and the reason why so many scientists are lead to believe the earth is millions of years old. In order for God to have the Earth and water bring forth life, there had to be immediate conditions suitable for it. So God spoke into existence "In motion", meaning that they did not form over millions of years from a Blast of energy, they were simply there in full form.

Of course there is much debate over this issue, and not something that Christians divide over, but it makes for great discussion and debate.

 

[ChrisS]

I guess I would consider myself an OEC, perhaps a mix between that and a TE, wierd.

 

[AngCath]

Old Earth Creation... but i'm not adamant about it. the Hebrew is ambiguous because the word for 'day' is the same word for 'era' as well as other elements in chapter 1 which lead me to the conclusion that although it may be a literal description of creation in a series of actual days, there is nothing that shows that it must be read that way.

maybe their should be an option for not sure, but God did it!

 

[ChrisS]

Old Earth Creation... but i'm not adamant about it. the Hebrew is ambiguous because the word for 'day' is the same word for 'era' as well as other elements in chapter 1 which lead me to the conclusion that although it may be a literal description of creation in a series of actual days, there is nothing that shows that it must be read that way.

maybe their should be an option for not sure, but God did it!

Yes, I agree. As well, the bible never says how God did it, meaning evolution might be valid, though I really just don't know.