Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone who preaches YEC is the most obvious example. A guy like Hovind is making statements that are false, yet that doesn't stop him, because the appetite to tell people what they want to hear and be their hero, trumps all.

The Dover case to get ID in schools is another example, but not as blatant. In the end, under the guise of needing to produce evidence and be cross examined under oath, the fact that ID was only creation in disguise, became obvious.

I think for Hovind it went past that. When the money started to pour in he ignored even the Bible. That is why he is a guest of the government right now. Hovind forgot "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

 

[Oncedeceived]

ASTROLOGY Were you home schooled

I know, I couldn't resist. The ancient astronomers drew assumptions from the constellations. Based on their observations of the night sky, ancient astronomers determined that during the daytime, the Sun would appear to "enter" or pass through different constellations throughout the year. Because of their perspective from Earth, they observed that the Sun, the Moon and all the planets visible with the naked eye seemed to pass in the course of a year through a region in the sky occupied by twelve specific constellations. Those constellations are the ones that we would intersect if we extend the ecliptic plane out into space. These twelve constellations were called the Zodiac. Many ancient people believed that a person's behavior, emotions, and fate were heavily influenced by the time of that person's birth i.e. that person's zodiac sign. A stretch but I thought it might be a good tidbit. I'm impressed that you noticed. Some would have read it and missed it all together.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Anyone who preaches YEC is the most obvious example. A guy like Hovind is making statements that are false, yet that doesn't stop him, because the appetite to tell people what they want to hear and be their hero, trumps all.

Does he have a degree?

The Dover case to get ID in schools is another example, but not as blatant. In the end, under the guise of needing to produce evidence and be cross examined under oath, the fact that ID was only creation in disguise, became obvious.

I have a wait to see attitude about that. ID has promise if everything that is determined can be shown to be from a solid scientific model.

 

[selfinflikted]

I know, I couldn't resist. The ancient astronomers drew assumptions from the constellations. Based on their observations of the night sky, ancient astronomers determined that during the daytime, the Sun would appear to "enter" or pass through different constellations throughout the year. Because of their perspective from Earth, they observed that the Sun, the Moon and all the planets visible with the naked eye seemed to pass in the course of a year through a region in the sky occupied by twelve specific constellations. Those constellations are the ones that we would intersect if we extend the ecliptic plane out into space. These twelve constellations were called the Zodiac. Many ancient people believed that a person's behavior, emotions, and fate were heavily influenced by the time of that person's birth i.e. that person's zodiac sign. A stretch but I thought it might be a good tidbit. I'm impressed that you noticed. Some would have read it and missed it all together.

Probably the rest of us assumed a mis-type. I guessed you meant astronomy.

 

[Ginger123]

Anyone who preaches YEC is the most obvious example. A guy like Hovind is making statements that are false, yet that doesn't stop him, because the appetite to tell people what they want to hear and be their hero, trumps all.

Does he have a degree?

Yes he does, a store bought degree.
Now I know you're just playing with us and you're not really a creationist.
There is ignorance and there is ignorance but you pushed your feigned ignorance a little too far.

 

[bhsmte]

Does he have a degree?



I have a wait to see attitude about that. ID has promise if everything that is determined can be shown to be from a solid scientific model.

Could you please explain why it matters if he has a degree? Does someone with a degree has the ability to make knowingly false statements?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes he does, a store bought degree.
Now I know you're just playing with us and you're not really a creationist.
There is ignorance and there is ignorance but you pushed your feigned ignorance a little too far.

I wonder if evolutionists shoot the messenger because creationists say evolution comes from the Devil, then shoot the devil?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does someone with a degree has the ability to make knowingly false statements?

Yes?

They can rig votes too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes he does, a store bought degree.
Now I know you're just playing with us and you're not really a creationist.
There is ignorance and there is ignorance but you pushed your feigned ignorance a little too far.

What do you mean? Ignorance in what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could you please explain why it matters if he has a degree? Does someone with a degree has the ability to make knowingly false statements?

Ok, I'll bite. what false statements did he knowingly make? I haven't read anything that he has written. I know the name from here but haven't ever got curious enough to see what he is about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Probably the rest of us assumed a mis-type. I guessed you meant astronomy.

Kudos for you too then. I do frequently mis-type too so that is reasonable to assume.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I'll bite. what false statements did he knowingly make?

If you're talking about Kent Hovind, he puts what he believes right up in the storefront window for everyone to see.

He even uses a giant projector that shows evolutionist doctrine in textbooks, with key words highlighted in red, that either contradict each other, or have been falsified; and yet he is the one who gets called a "liar," and not the authors of the lies he is exposing.

As the Bible says:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

The term for what they do is shooting the messenger, and in Kent Hovind's case -- as well as those like DI, ICR, [the late] Henry M. Morris, Gail A. Riplinger, Jack Chick, Peter S. Ruckman, the Bible, and God -- they are good at it.

 

[Strathos]

Well, I responded to a post about a sort of litmus test that WiccanChild said he sees as reasonable to parse literal and metaphorical content from the Bible. The problem that I brought up in that post is the same problem I will present to you now.

Basically what you're saying here is, if the Bible contradicts reality, then the passages doing the contradicting must not be literal.

To save time typing, I'll just copy/pasta my original response:



So basically, if you were more ignorant of the facts, you would be more likely to believe that the Bible should be read literally. As you gain knowledge, you read the Bible metaphorically (at least the parts that don't match up to what we currently know).

So basically, you're saying I can't be trusted to accept certain things now because I might learn they are wrong in the future?

Isn't that the exact same argument creationists like AV use against the scientific method? "Science has been wrong about things before, so all current scientific knowledge is unreliable because it might be disproven tomorrow".

The Bible doesn't claim that each living species in the same form as they are now. In fact, it says there were these "kinds" prior to the kinds listed. That is very important. I don't believe God deceives us either and that is why you have to understand what is being said rather than standard Christian thinking. After its kind shows us that kinds can adapt and change and come around to the list we have in Genesis.

The problem is that (as far as I am aware), no creationists have rigorously defined the "kinds" and explained how they differ from species, and how they correspond to modern and extinct creatures.

If you're talking about Kent Hovind, he puts what he believes right up in the storefront window for everyone to see.

He even uses a giant projector that shows evolutionist doctrine in textbooks, with key words highlighted in red, that either contradict each other, or have been falsified; and yet he is the one who gets called a "liar," and not the authors of the lies he is exposing.

Mr. Hovind was known for taking scientific sources out of context to try to discredit them, much as various people do to try to discredit the Bible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But this is potentially problematic, isn't it? According to this test, a thousand years ago the scriptures would've contained far more literal content than they do today. I mean, as science continues to fill in the gaps in our knowledge, that will simply mean that the Bible will eventually contain nothing but metaphor, allegory, or story-telling.

(I only just found this post!)

The Bible's literal content will tend towards the amount that is truly literally accurate. If some of it is literally true (there was indeed a country called Egypt ruled by Pharaohs), then that part will remain literal. The extraneous parts will be relegated to metaphor/exaggeration, but some will remain literal.

So Genesis 1 is metaphorical because it turns out to be factually incorrect. This doesn't mean it 'becomes' metaphorical, but rather that it was always metaphorical - we just didn't know it. All verses/stories are taken as a 'dunno' until we can conclude they're literal or not. If they contradict reality, we can make that decision.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I believe God created the Big Bang, likely when He hovered over the deep. And this created the firmament and earth and heavenly bodies, etc.

I believe time came before God, but God created space, and spacetime, and therefore took over control of time.

I see no reason why science cannot corroborate the existence of God, or His word.

There is no missing link. Homo Sapiens sapiens is man, made in God's image. Apes were like neanderthal man but real man is different. Real man is Adam.

Literalists might have a problem reconciling science with creation, but I don't. Anyone who studies the Old Testament understands that symbolism is the primary element of it.


edit: ^Genesis is amazingly and divinely correct.

 

[freezerman2000]

There is no missing link. Homo Sapiens sapiens is man, made in God's image. Apes were like neanderthal man but real man is different. Real man is Adam.

i believe every thing you stated except what I snipped.
What exactly does pure spirit look like? I sure don't look like a spirit,neither does anyone else.
Adam in my opinion was the first being with the knowledge that there was a higher being than he...spiritual knowledge..with that came the ability to know the difference between good and evil,a conscience if you will.
In other words,he was the first true son of God.
When God "created" Adam,it WAS in His image,not physical because spirit has no physical image,but His SPIRITUAL image.

 

[biggles53]

I believe God created the Big Bang, likely when He hovered over the deep. And this created the firmament and earth and heavenly bodies, etc.

If there was no matter before the Big Bang, how could there have been a 'deep' for anyone to have "hovered over"...?

I believe time came before God, but God created space, and spacetime, and therefore took over control of time.

If time came before your god, then who created it...?

I see no reason why science cannot corroborate the existence of God, or His word.

Science is the study of the real world. As long as it asserted that gods exist outside of reality, science would have no interest in investigating them....

There is no missing link. Homo Sapiens sapiens is man, made in God's image. Apes were like neanderthal man but real man is different. Real man is Adam.

Please show the research and evidence you have uncovered to support these bald assertions.....

Literalists might have a problem reconciling science with creation, but I don't. Anyone who studies the Old Testament understands that symbolism is the primary element of it.


edit: ^Genesis is amazingly and divinely correct.

Can you see how those two paragraphs might be in contradiction with one another...?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The problem is that (as far as I am aware), no creationists have rigorously defined the "kinds" and explained how they differ from species, and how they correspond to modern and extinct creatures.

For debate purposes I have decided that kinds are the three domains of life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you're talking about Kent Hovind, he puts what he believes right up in the storefront window for everyone to see.

He even uses a giant projector that shows evolutionist doctrine in textbooks, with key words highlighted in red, that either contradict each other, or have been falsified; and yet he is the one who gets called a "liar," and not the authors of the lies he is exposing.

As the Bible says:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

The term for what they do is shooting the messenger, and in Kent Hovind's case -- as well as those like DI, ICR, [the late] Henry M. Morris, Gail A. Riplinger, Jack Chick, Peter S. Ruckman, the Bible, and God -- they are good at it.

So you say he is a straight shooter and another Christian says no. I guess I might have to look into this.

 

[malckiah]

Being that I know there are NO flaws in Christianity I am lead to ask:

What do you see as the flaws in Christianity? Please be detailed and list them all.