GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[TheReasoner]

actually Hitler literally used concepts of evolution to push His agenda, He could not do that with the Bible.

It was honest, when you believe you came from an animal all sorts of misaligned behavior comes into play.

USincognito said it well. But regardless: Sure you can do that with the bible. It has been done and done again. Forgotten the crusades, the witch burnings, centuries of warfare between catholics and protestants, christians and muslims, christians and non-christians in other parts of the world? If you believe God has given you permission or indeed commanded you to do so and so in His name then you can use the bible to justify anything you want. People have and still do. Hitler did, the crusaders did, the conquistadors did...

If you want to justify evil you can manage to do so with anything you have available ideologically. If you want to justify good you can do that the same way - usually.

I see that many creationists think evolution leads to evil - a sort of selection. But this isn't evolution, and to think that it is means you have not understood it at all.


I still move you have not been and are not intellectually honest. Examples of intellectual dishonesty include:

• the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
• the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
• the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

where I move you have NOT performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of your position relating to the abuse of ToE and the bible respectively for evil deeds. Furthermore, as you must be aware of Christianity's dark deeds in the past I ALSO move you are consciously omitting those aspects in order to give the appearance of strength to your position.

Intellectual honesty is a little more demanding than 'honesty' Grady.

 

[Jazer]

It takes courage to admit when you are wrong and it is noticeably lacking in the creationist camp.

Perhaps you would have hated Corrie Tan Boon also. You would have considered her a criminal because she served time in a concentration camp. Her father died in prison and her sister died in Ravensbrück.

 

[TheReasoner]

Perhaps you would have hated Corrie Tan Boon also. You would have considered her a criminal because she served time in a concentration camp. Her father died in prison and her sister died in Ravensbrück.

What are you on Jazer? That was more than a wild stretch, that was insane.

Pull yourself together, man. Concentration camps vs. prisons and Corrie Tan-Boom vs. Hovind? Are you out of your mind? Have some decency and respect for people like Corrie and don't compare her (as an innocent individual) time in a concentration camp with Hovind's time in prison for real crimes.

I take real and serious offense at such a vile and inane comparison. It is degrading and disrespectful to the millions of people who died in concentration camps, it is a slap in the face of Corrie and what she stood for, it is utterly insane to compare prisons in the US to concentration camps in Nazi germany. You should be ashamed Jazer. Deeply deeply ashamed! How dare you?

 

[Freodin]

I can only repeat myself: it is the honest people who try to answer sincerely the questions that they are confronted with... even if they shouldn't.

They shouldn't do that, because it means that the dishonest people win with their tactics of goalpost shifting, derailing... general deflecting from the topic at hand.

How else could you call this than inherent dishonesty: the question was how to deal with the "sins" of Kent Hovind... and now we have to deal with Hitler and Concentration Camps.

 

[Jazer]

How else could you call this than inherent dishonesty: the question was how to deal with the "sins" of Kent Hovind... and now we have to deal with Hitler and Concentration Camps.

As if the German people had nothing to do with that. My father and my brother were both stationed in Germany, my grandfather served in France during WW1.

 

[TheReasoner]

I can only repeat myself: it is the honest people who try to answer sincerely the questions that they are confronted with... even if they shouldn't.

They shouldn't do that, because it means that the dishonest people win with their tactics of goalpost shifting, derailing... general deflecting from the topic at hand.

How else could you call this than inherent dishonesty: the question was how to deal with the "sins" of Kent Hovind... and now we have to deal with Hitler and Concentration Camps.

Talk about inane derailing attempts:

As if the German people had nothing to do with that. My father and my brother were both stationed in Germany, my grandfather served in France during WW1.

unbelievable. Hovind is criticized legitimately. -- he is "Defended" by creationists like Jazer who bring up concentration camps and Hitler -- this is pointed out as a derailing attempt -- Jazer "cleverly" retorts by saying that the German people had something to do with the concentration camps.




I think I can play along those lines Jazer: Llamas can spit, therefore the Dollar should not be used as a currency in the USA. Furthermore, because birs fly and fish swim it is absolutely certain that blue is not the color we should choose for the new tablecloth. All together this tells us that Green's theorem is wrong and we should abandon Newtonian mechanics altogether.
That was arguably the same discussion technique you just employed, Jazer. If you want to discuss something perhaps you should have the decency to stick to what is being discussed, and not debase yourself to the sub-human level of referring to utterly irrelevant atrocities to justify your inane defense of a known and convicted criminal. I take real offense that you would compare any victim of Nazi Germany to a legally and justifiably imprisoned criminal in the US. It is a slap in the face of many many millions of people. I should hope you have the decency to apologize.

 

[Jazer]

Pull yourself together, man. Concentration camps vs. prisons and Corrie Tan-Boom vs. Hovind?

They both took a stand for what they believed in. Do I believe in what Hovind and his son teaches? Not really, but I am not so quick to throw them to the Lions.

Hovind is anti theistic evolution. Why? He lets atheist Professor Peter Atkins answer that question. According to Hovind's (drdino.com) current newsletter Professor Atkins said that he supposed it was all right to believe that a god had created the universe through evolution, but that it would have to be a particularly malignant and cruel kind of God. They see problems with theistic evolution and want to point out to people what the problems are.

 

[TheReasoner]

They both took a stand for what they believed in. Do I believe in what Hovind and his son teaches? Not really, but I am not so quick to throw them to the Lions.

Unbelievable! Throw them to the lions? Great. Now you're bringing in martyrs. Have you no conscience? Magnificent!

Hovind is a CRIMINAL. He is a liar and a cheat. As evidenced. If you call stealing and cheating 'standing up for what you believe in' then I suppose every convicted criminial, every murderous monster and every despot in the world is suddenly justified in what they did.

Hovind has not behaved according to the mandates of scripture. In his criticism of evolution he has debased himself to lies, logical inconcistencies, ad-hominems, well poisoning, straw-man arguments, goal post moving and more. Not exactly commendable, and certainly not acceptable from someone who claims authority in Jesus' name.

And you.... You defend him by comparing him - a man who lies, cheats, lies about cheating, tries to commit fraud - is found out, lies about that and tries to hide the extent of his holdings in order to retain a maximum of his earthly possessions. Followed by him - after his conviction - tries to wriggle out of it all by lying even more. That is NOT Corrie Tan Boom. Good grief what an insult. Have you no decency? No respect?

Hovind is anti theistic evolution. Why? He lets atheist Professor Peter Atkins answer that question. According to Hovind's (drdino.com) current newsletter Professor Atkins said that he supposed it was all right to believe that a god had created the universe through evolution, but that it would have to be a particularly malignant and cruel kind of God. They see problems with theistic evolution and want to point out to people what the problems are.

That is Hovind's opinion. Had he promoted that with integrity, decency, proper christian behavior AND followed the law I would not have a problem with him airing his opinion. As he did not do that I DO have a problem with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hovind is a CRIMINAL. He is a liar and a cheat.

You still ranting against your poster boy?

 

[TheReasoner]

You still ranting against your poster boy?

He's your poster boy AV. Creationism's prime advocate for many years. A fraud. A man who behaves as much like Christ as a triangle missing a side is like a circle.

My "rant" is against Jazer who compares a criminal with Corrie Tan Boom, and the imprisonment of this criminal with nazi concentration camps. A dire insult.

 

[Jazer]

unbelievable. Hovind is criticized legitimately. -- he is "Defended" by creationists like Jazer who bring up concentration camps and Hitler -- this is pointed out as a derailing attempt -- Jazer "cleverly" retorts by saying that the German people had something to do with the concentration camps.

I brough up Corrie Tan Boon that was thrown in a German Concentration Camp for trying to protect Jewish people from having to go to a Concentration camp.

 

[createdtoworship]

What part of "natural selection" are you having the most trouble with? Is it the "natural" part?



Tax exempt doesn't mean he didn't have to income tax or payroll taxes for his employees.





Actually, Hitler did not. As I've already noted artificial selection practiced on humans or other animals is not evolution. Evolution is natural selection.
2,300 years before Darwin, there existed a society that wanted to breed a race of supermen and encouraged their boys to be soldiers through submission to the state, rigorous athletic training and military drills. That society was Sparta and Hitler held them in high esteem.


quoted here

Hitler didn't see other groups as unfit. He saw them as vermin or a disease infesting the Volk and thus was more inspired by Joseph Lister than Darwin.



Unless you're a vegetable or mineral, you're an animal too.



Hovind's a tax protester and a convicted tax cheat. His YECism aren't his only crazy ideas.

it depends on your definition of evolution, you have to set the bars straight.

 

[createdtoworship]

USincognito said it well. But regardless: Sure you can do that with the bible. It has been done and done again. Forgotten the crusades, the witch burnings, centuries of warfare between catholics and protestants, christians and muslims, christians and non-christians in other parts of the world? If you believe God has given you permission or indeed commanded you to do so and so in His name then you can use the bible to justify anything you want. People have and still do. Hitler did, the crusaders did, the conquistadors did...

If you want to justify evil you can manage to do so with anything you have available ideologically. If you want to justify good you can do that the same way - usually.

I see that many creationists think evolution leads to evil - a sort of selection. But this isn't evolution, and to think that it is means you have not understood it at all.


I still move you have not been and are not intellectually honest. Examples of intellectual dishonesty include:

where I move you have NOT performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of your position relating to the abuse of ToE and the bible respectively for evil deeds. Furthermore, as you must be aware of Christianity's dark deeds in the past I ALSO move you are consciously omitting those aspects in order to give the appearance of strength to your position.

Intellectual honesty is a little more demanding than 'honesty' Grady.

the crusades were started with a legitimate reason (extremist Muslim terrorism) but ended bad. Hitler never had a legitimate reason for racism, this is why he pushed science so much in a day and age when evolution was used to promote slavery and other despicable things. The Bible can not be used to promotes such things as eugenics and racism like evolution can be used to.

 

[createdtoworship]

Part 7 - Dr. Kent Hovind - Questions and Answers

I thought we should examine the evidence that Kent Hovind is a liar and a cheat by examining his videos one by one, what do you think? Just kidding. But he does win every debate that He is in to the point no one wanted to debate Him.

 

[TheReasoner]

the crusades were started with a legitimate reason (extremist Muslim terrorism) but ended bad. Hitler never had a legitimate reason for racism, this is why he pushed science so much in a day and age when evolution was used to promote slavery and other despicable things. The Bible can not be used to promotes such things as eugenics and racism like evolution can be used to.

Again with the nonsense? You know it has been used for that. That it IS used for that. You have plenty of proponents for it in your country. We have them in Europe too. It is not a new phenomenon and it will not pass either. Not for as long as man wants to excuse such behavior.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again with the nonsense? You know it has been used for that. That it IS used for that. You have plenty of proponents for it in your country. We have them in Europe too. It is not a new phenomenon and it will not pass either. Not for as long as man wants to excuse such behavior.

citations needed?

 

[TheReasoner]

Part 7 - Dr. Kent Hovind - Questions and Answers

I thought we should examine the evidence that Kent Hovind is a liar and a cheat by examining his videos one by one, what do you think? Just kidding. But he does win every debate that He is in to the point no one wanted to debate Him.

No-one wants to debate a charismatic dirt-flinger with a fake degree. How odd. The guy does not behave properly, does not adhere to proper code of conduct. He uses foul methods such as all the ones I have mentioned so of course no-one wants to debate him. Doing so would be to offer him respect he has not earned. If you can't behave properly then you won't be respected, and if you are not respected but an object of justified ridicule - as Hovind is - then of course you'll find very few who will offer him a second thought in such situations.

But, can we go on now? His degree is fake. He does not follow/meet the requirements for Christian leaders set forth in the bible. Surely you see those arguments are incontrovertible. So why do you defend him? He has done wrong. Great wrong. We should not hate him, but we should show him and others that such behavior is not something christians tolerate in those who have claimed to hold authority in Jesus' name. Grady, it does not matter what he was an advocate for. Or how successful he was. If we look to how Christianity arrived in Scandinavia it was often by the sword. You either converted to Christianity or you lost your head. So we can say that this form of evangelism is effective, and it would be right. But it is also anti-christian in that it uses methods in Christ's name which are counter-christian in every respect. Hovind's debates and arguments might sound sweet in your ears because he's saying things you want to hear. But that does not make it any better. He is using methods and having obvious agendas which are counter-christian. For that reason he should not receive any respect until he repents.

Or do you think the warrior priests and missionaries who christened with sword in one hand and bible in the other were right in their deeds? Sure, that's a logically inconsistent argument, but the point is not to compare Hovind with violent viking missionaries - but to point out that the ends do not in any way justify the means. Our standard is - by our pledge to follow Christ - higher than that. And if we cannot argue for something while also maintaining a strong moral and ethical standard we should not argue at all. For if we cannot defend the Faith but by darkness and deceit then we should not defend it. Evil cannot shield good. Darkness cannot shield light. Not in this setting.

So: Again.... My problem is not so much Hovind's opinions but his behavior. What he has done and how he refuses to repent from his sins. I ask again, and I would really like a plain answer: Why do you defend his deeds like you are?

 

[TheReasoner]

citations needed?

Seriously?

Kosovo/Serbia. The christening of Norway. The christening of Latin America. The subjugation of Africa and Oceania. Crusades. Witch burnings. Apartheid. Racist extremists, right wing extremists, christian terrorists...

Up until after WW2, I think the fifties, native Americans were seen as animals in many countries in the Americas. I forgot which was the last to change that officially. Regardless: In the mines of Potosi natives were worked - literally - till they dropped dead. And this practice was encouraged by the church as atonement for their sins and ways for them (the natives) to gain sufficient standing in God's eyes to gain salvation on-par with humans - yes, they often considered the natives to be non-humans. All defended with the bible. It still is. Just talk to a KKK-er. Or a member of EDL or similar organization who claims to be Christian.

Do you really need to see hard sources for those things Grady? Surely not.

 

[createdtoworship]

No-one wants to debate a charismatic dirt-flinger with a fake degree. How odd. The guy does not behave properly, does not adhere to proper code of conduct. He uses foul methods such as all the ones I have mentioned so of course no-one wants to debate him. Doing so would be to offer him respect he has not earned. If you can't behave properly then you won't be respected, and if you are not respected but an object of justified ridicule - as Hovind is - then of course you'll find very few who will offer him a second thought in such situations.

But, can we go on now? His degree is fake. He does not follow/meet the requirements for Christian leaders set forth in the bible. Surely you see those arguments are incontrovertible. So why do you defend him? He has done wrong. Great wrong. We should not hate him, but we should show him and others that such behavior is not something christians tolerate in those who have claimed to hold authority in Jesus' name. Grady, it does not matter what he was an advocate for. Or how successful he was. If we look to how Christianity arrived in Scandinavia it was often by the sword. You either converted to Christianity or you lost your head. So we can say that this form of evangelism is effective, and it would be right. But it is also anti-christian in that it uses methods in Christ's name which are counter-christian in every respect. Hovind's debates and arguments might sound sweet in your ears because he's saying things you want to hear. But that does not make it any better. He is using methods and having obvious agendas which are counter-christian. For that reason he should not receive any respect until he repents.

Or do you think the warrior priests and missionaries who christened with sword in one hand and bible in the other were right in their deeds? Sure, that's a logically inconsistent argument, but the point is not to compare Hovind with violent viking missionaries - but to point out that the ends do not in any way justify the means. Our standard is - by our pledge to follow Christ - higher than that. And if we cannot argue for something while also maintaining a strong moral and ethical standard we should not argue at all. For if we cannot defend the Faith but by darkness and deceit then we should not defend it. Evil cannot shield good. Darkness cannot shield light. Not in this setting.

So: Again.... My problem is not so much Hovind's opinions but his behavior. What he has done and how he refuses to repent from his sins. I ask again, and I would really like a plain answer: Why do you defend his deeds like you are?

all the more to debate him and use this against him publicly, not run away and make him think He is smart. Which is what is being done.

 

[createdtoworship]

Seriously?

Kosovo/Serbia. The christening of Norway. The christening of Latin America. The subjugation of Africa and Oceania. Crusades. Witch burnings. Apartheid. Racist extremists, right wing extremists, christian terrorists...

Up until after WW2, I think the fifties, native Americans were seen as animals in many countries in the Americas. I forgot which was the last to change that officially. Regardless: In the mines of Potosi natives were worked - literally - till they dropped dead. And this practice was encouraged by the church as atonement for their sins and ways for them (the natives) to gain sufficient standing in God's eyes to gain salvation on-par with humans - yes, they often considered the natives to be non-humans. All defended with the bible. It still is. Just talk to a KKK-er. Or a member of EDL or similar organization who claims to be Christian.

Do you really need to see hard sources for those things Grady? Surely not.

you still have yet to provide sources for christian heresy not roman catholic?

KKK and EDL is obviously not christian but racist. So you have provided no sources for christian extremists only racist and roman catholic. Racism is not christian, but false faith rooted in evolution.