-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Flood
- Thread starter oddchild
- Start date
If you are a literalist, you should believe in the begining "dust" since man was created from dust.
NO, God created the dust, therefore it is "in the beginning God".
If you trully want to learn, stick around and ask questions, and you will.
True I would like to learn but this has got to be a two sided street. I listen,listen and listen just isn't gonna cut it. You have got to realize that you have something to learn also. I believe very strongly in my beliefs, so I will be a hard customer to change. But I will listen to your points politely and try not to down your beliefs harshly. Lord Willing that is.
NO, God created the dust, therefore it is "in the beginning God".
If you trully want to learn, stick around and ask questions, and you will.
True I would like to learn but this has got to be a two sided street. I listen,listen and listen just isn't gonna cut it. You have got to realize that you have something to learn also. I believe very strongly in my beliefs, so I will be a hard customer to change. But I will listen to your points politely and try not to down your beliefs harshly. Lord Willing that is.
Upvote
0
1) Theistic evolutionist believe "in the begining there was god"
Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not. God could have used evolution to create. matter of fact, gods creation says he did. (if you believe in god).
2) You still did not answer my questions,
A) Is it acceptable for DrDino to add to the bible?
Is it acceptable as a literalist, to interpret Psalms differently than literally, like DrDino did?
B) Do you believe barcodes have 666 in them?
One more question to add,
C) Do you believe the earth is flat?
Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not. God could have used evolution to create. matter of fact, gods creation says he did. (if you believe in god).
2) You still did not answer my questions,
A) Is it acceptable for DrDino to add to the bible?
Is it acceptable as a literalist, to interpret Psalms differently than literally, like DrDino did?
B) Do you believe barcodes have 666 in them?
One more question to add,
C) Do you believe the earth is flat?
Upvote
0
Ain't that the truth. Conclusory statements not supported by any evidence, arguments from incredulity, etc, etc. He uses every debating trick in the book in order to avoid actually dealing with the evidence straight on.Josh1 said:
He has been basically disowned by the other Creationist groups for both his arguments and his tactics. He is an embarassment to the Creation Science movement.
He *does* sell a lot of books and materials, though.
I would highly recommend you read this article by the leading YEC group:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp
and the article which is linked in it, setting out the arguments Creationists should NOT use.
Upvote
0
"It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more."
No, it is Not reasonable to assume this. Quite a few larger animals learn from their parent. No parents for them to learn from and you end up with animals that do not know how to live.
First of all, my first thought is that your making an assumption. God naturally instilled in each animal a will to live. They survived by Gods protection. God parted the red sea, could He not protect the animals for a short time till they reproduced? You said yourself that you believed in God. Don't you believe in a God that can do miracles. Herb= a plant lacking a permanent woody stem; many are flowering garden plants or potherbs;
Arikay said: many think this was only before the fall. However, it says Nothing about before or after the flood. Again, Hovind is Adding to the bible.
I think it's pretty clear, it does say before the flood and where does the Bible say it was removed with the fall? I think you are the one adding to the scriptures. God Bless. I will post later. Probally next week or so. I don't have the internet at my house,and I have to this from the computer at work.(which I only work part-time) God Bless.
No, it is Not reasonable to assume this. Quite a few larger animals learn from their parent. No parents for them to learn from and you end up with animals that do not know how to live.
First of all, my first thought is that your making an assumption. God naturally instilled in each animal a will to live. They survived by Gods protection. God parted the red sea, could He not protect the animals for a short time till they reproduced? You said yourself that you believed in God. Don't you believe in a God that can do miracles. Herb= a plant lacking a permanent woody stem; many are flowering garden plants or potherbs;
Arikay said: many think this was only before the fall. However, it says Nothing about before or after the flood. Again, Hovind is Adding to the bible.
I think it's pretty clear, it does say before the flood and where does the Bible say it was removed with the fall? I think you are the one adding to the scriptures. God Bless. I will post later. Probally next week or so. I don't have the internet at my house,and I have to this from the computer at work.(which I only work part-time) God Bless.
Upvote
0
1) You still have not answered my questions.
2)
A) Yes you are right, I am assuming that god did not protect them. Why am I assuming this? Because it does not say in the bible he did. If you want to read the bible literally, you can not add to it just to fit your pet theories. Not to mention that an animal that must have been on the ark, the Blue Whale (it must have been on the ark because it has the breath of life, and would have died in the flood) matures at a very fast rate. It would have fully matured by the end of the flood.
If you add to the bible, You can no longer call yourself a literalist, now can you.
B) He quotes Gen 1:29-30. Lets read what it has to say,
**
"Gen 1:29* And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
**
Gen 1:30* And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. "
No Where does it say Anything about the flood. Many believe animals started eating meat at the fall, because they inheritted sin from man. There is a huge problem with this as well, but we will get into that later.
So tell me, why did this herb eating end after the flood?
Let me guess, they evolved the ability to eat meat. Thats some amazing evolutionary abilities that supposable dont exist.
2)
A) Yes you are right, I am assuming that god did not protect them. Why am I assuming this? Because it does not say in the bible he did. If you want to read the bible literally, you can not add to it just to fit your pet theories. Not to mention that an animal that must have been on the ark, the Blue Whale (it must have been on the ark because it has the breath of life, and would have died in the flood) matures at a very fast rate. It would have fully matured by the end of the flood.
If you add to the bible, You can no longer call yourself a literalist, now can you.
B) He quotes Gen 1:29-30. Lets read what it has to say,
**
"Gen 1:29* And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
**
Gen 1:30* And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. "
No Where does it say Anything about the flood. Many believe animals started eating meat at the fall, because they inheritted sin from man. There is a huge problem with this as well, but we will get into that later.
So tell me, why did this herb eating end after the flood?
Let me guess, they evolved the ability to eat meat. Thats some amazing evolutionary abilities that supposable dont exist.
Josh1 said:
Upvote
0
Nope. Subjects like evolution, geology, cosmology, and the various other topics Hovind routinely takes issue with are deep. So deep they cannot be adequetly debated in verbal form. Written form, on the other hand, allows for detailed explanations and referencing of sources, which can then be examinded, unlike in a live debate where there is no time.Josh1 said:
That's the whole point. It gives the participants time to really scrutinize what their debate opponent is saying, so they can weed through the bs and stick to the facts.
That's an excuse. I've watched Hovind debate before and he is clearly really good at debating in the live format. He relies on snappy comebacks and being able to throw out more information than can be readily addressed. However, if you start to pick apart what he is saying, it becomes clear that he doesn't really know what he is talking about.
IMHO, Hovind's live debates are nothing more than a spectacle; a show for his believers. If he was serious about taking on the issues of science, he would do so via scientific research and publication.
I accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the biological diversity of life on Earth, the same way I accept the theory of gravity as being the best explanation for the orbits of the planets. I don't "believe" in it in a religious sense.
As far as God goes, I believe that there might be a god, but I cannot say in what form. I believe that if there is such a being, then chances are no religion on Earth has it figured out (I cannot accept that a single religion on Earth is correct and the rest are all wrong).
Upvote
0
Arikay:A) Yes you are right, I am assuming that god did not protect them. Why am I assuming this? Because it does not say in the bible he did. If you want to read the bible literally, you can not add to it just to fit your pet theories. Not to mention that an animal that must have been on the ark, the Blue Whale (it must have been on the ark because it has the breath of life, and would have died in the flood) matures at a very fast rate. It would have fully matured by the end of the flood.
First of all, I told you at the beginning that I never liked science. So this debate might go over my head. I leave science up to Dr.Hovind to debate. But as far as reading into the Bible? I totally disagree. You are the one that is trying to knock down the Bible. The Bible says clearly that is was a global flood and as far as I understand, you are trying to localize it. BTW, there were some barcodes on them that had 666 on them but I admit most of them don't. I saw some of them myself. Whether this a fullfillment to prophecy or not,it don't really matter. There are many ways that God had to intervene on the ark. Do you really think that Noah just hollard and two of each kind came running? God had to bring them, it is just common sense. Do you think the Bible holds all of Gods miracles? Of course it don't. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that evolution should be the only thing taught in the classrooms? We know that it is just a religion,in fact,I believe it is much weaker than the creation theory. No,of course the earth is not flat. The Bible says it is wrong to add to the Bible, but I do believe that you and him are just interpreting the verse different. God Bless.
First of all, I told you at the beginning that I never liked science. So this debate might go over my head. I leave science up to Dr.Hovind to debate. But as far as reading into the Bible? I totally disagree. You are the one that is trying to knock down the Bible. The Bible says clearly that is was a global flood and as far as I understand, you are trying to localize it. BTW, there were some barcodes on them that had 666 on them but I admit most of them don't. I saw some of them myself. Whether this a fullfillment to prophecy or not,it don't really matter. There are many ways that God had to intervene on the ark. Do you really think that Noah just hollard and two of each kind came running? God had to bring them, it is just common sense. Do you think the Bible holds all of Gods miracles? Of course it don't. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that evolution should be the only thing taught in the classrooms? We know that it is just a religion,in fact,I believe it is much weaker than the creation theory. No,of course the earth is not flat. The Bible says it is wrong to add to the Bible, but I do believe that you and him are just interpreting the verse different. God Bless.
Upvote
0
Pete: That's an excuse. I've watched Hovind debate before and he is clearly really good at debating in the live format. He relies on snappy comebacks and being able to throw out more information than can be readily addressed. However, if you start to pick apart what he is saying, it becomes clear that he doesn't really know what he is talking about.
IMHO, Hovind's live debates are nothing more than a spectacle; a show for his believers. If he was serious about taking on the issues of science, he would do so via scientific research and publication.
An excuse? You are the one making all kinds of excuses. As far as the "show" goes, I know tons of converts because of his tapes and debates. So please don't try to tell me what he should do. Face to face is where the job gets done. Many people try to hide behind books or in forums. If a person really believes what he says then he will get out there and fight for it like a man.
Arikay:Theistic evolutionist believe "in the begining there was god"
Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not. God could have used evolution to create. matter of fact, gods creation says he did. (if you believe in god).
Gods "creation" said it did? Sorry,no go. Prove it, because His Bible says He didn't. BTW Pete, how did the earth come about? The Big Bang or by an amoebe? Please answer my question. God Bless. Josh
IMHO, Hovind's live debates are nothing more than a spectacle; a show for his believers. If he was serious about taking on the issues of science, he would do so via scientific research and publication.
An excuse? You are the one making all kinds of excuses. As far as the "show" goes, I know tons of converts because of his tapes and debates. So please don't try to tell me what he should do. Face to face is where the job gets done. Many people try to hide behind books or in forums. If a person really believes what he says then he will get out there and fight for it like a man.
Arikay:Theistic evolutionist believe "in the begining there was god"
Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not. God could have used evolution to create. matter of fact, gods creation says he did. (if you believe in god).
Gods "creation" said it did? Sorry,no go. Prove it, because His Bible says He didn't. BTW Pete, how did the earth come about? The Big Bang or by an amoebe? Please answer my question. God Bless. Josh
Upvote
0
1) You shouldn't leave science up to Hovind, he gets it wrong quite often. My thread "refutation of Creationevidence.org" can be applied to DrDino as well.
2) I am not trying to knock down the bible, only a literal interpretation of it.
Think about it, God made nature, science is the study of nature, thus science is the study of gods creation. Now, Science, says that a global flood Did Not Happen. Who do you believe? Gods creation or your interpretation of the bible?
3) Hovind claims that the three longest bars on the bar code, stand for 666. This is completly false. They have No Value. They are begining, middle, and end guide bars.
4) Yes, god probably had to group the animals, however, it also talks about the animals and the need to take them on the ark. It does not talk about any sort of protection. You can not assume much more than what you have been told in the bible, and stay a literalist.
5) Yes I believe that since Evolution is the only Valid unfalsified theory that it should be taught alone in school. Creationism should be taught as a falsified theory. Thus we would teach the truth to kids.
6) evolution is not a religion. DrDino doesn't even give you the correct definition for evolution, let alone teach you anything about science, sorry my friend, but you have been lied to.
7) A literal reading of the bible suggests the earth is flat,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/flatearth.html
2) I am not trying to knock down the bible, only a literal interpretation of it.
Think about it, God made nature, science is the study of nature, thus science is the study of gods creation. Now, Science, says that a global flood Did Not Happen. Who do you believe? Gods creation or your interpretation of the bible?
3) Hovind claims that the three longest bars on the bar code, stand for 666. This is completly false. They have No Value. They are begining, middle, and end guide bars.
4) Yes, god probably had to group the animals, however, it also talks about the animals and the need to take them on the ark. It does not talk about any sort of protection. You can not assume much more than what you have been told in the bible, and stay a literalist.
5) Yes I believe that since Evolution is the only Valid unfalsified theory that it should be taught alone in school. Creationism should be taught as a falsified theory. Thus we would teach the truth to kids.
6) evolution is not a religion. DrDino doesn't even give you the correct definition for evolution, let alone teach you anything about science, sorry my friend, but you have been lied to.
7) A literal reading of the bible suggests the earth is flat,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/flatearth.html
Josh1 said:
Upvote
0
It is well established here and on many places on the web that Hovind is a charlatan and his debate challenge is bogus. Do you wonder how someone who has declared bankruptcy can put up 250,000 for a debate challenge.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html
It is amazing that he still fools people like Josh with his nonsense. Anyone who learns all about Hovind and his many lies and still gives him credibility might like to buy some shares I have for sale in a bridge in Brooklyn. Hovind relies on ignorance and willingness to believe. What will it take to cure the ignorance of Hovind believers?
The problem with trying to debate him in person is that he can tell more lies in two minutes than a scientist can correct in two hours and he will just respond with more lies.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm
Though he doesn't always agree to debate.
http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm
There is thread on Hovind's idiocy already.
http://www.christianforums.com/t56221
and examples are given on this thread.
We have discussed a long list of falsifications of the global on this board and neither Hovind or any other YEC can refute them. They are all over this board.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html
It is amazing that he still fools people like Josh with his nonsense. Anyone who learns all about Hovind and his many lies and still gives him credibility might like to buy some shares I have for sale in a bridge in Brooklyn. Hovind relies on ignorance and willingness to believe. What will it take to cure the ignorance of Hovind believers?
The problem with trying to debate him in person is that he can tell more lies in two minutes than a scientist can correct in two hours and he will just respond with more lies.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind_page.htm
Though he doesn't always agree to debate.
http://www.nmsr.org/hovind.htm
There is thread on Hovind's idiocy already.
http://www.christianforums.com/t56221
and examples are given on this thread.
We have discussed a long list of falsifications of the global on this board and neither Hovind or any other YEC can refute them. They are all over this board.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Who is hiding? I use my real name on these forums. I am not afraid to put my real identity along side my words.Josh1 said:
But I recongize live debates about subjects like evolution are generally worthless because the subjects are too deep to be properly debated or discussed in that format. All that those live debates prove is who is a better debater. It has little bearing on the subjects being debated.
Try picking up a college-level textbook on evolution and start reading. You'll see the futility of trying to debate such a deep topic in real time.
The only reason Hovind likes his live debates, is because that is the only format in which he can "win" them. But it all comes back to his debating tactics, which rely on strawman arguments, witty comebacks, and the occational "fact" thrown in for good measure. He wouldn't last more than a couple posts in a written debate. The regularity of which his arguments have been shredded here is a testament to that.
Gravity
Upvote
0
Pete: Gravity
_______________Where did the gravity come from? Yeah, you know where im going now,don't you.
_______________Where did the gravity come from? Yeah, you know where im going now,don't you.
Upvote
0
Arikay:
Matthew 4:8 also supports a flat earth,
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; It is impossible to see All the kingdoms of the world from a single mountain, on a spherical earth, however it is possible on a flat earth. So this again, supports a flat earth.
How do you misinterpret the BIble so badly? This is merely stating that satan was able to shew him the kingdom and their power. Where in that Bible verse did it say the earth was flat? Satan(if you believe the Bible) was a powerful being and could easily show him all the kingdoms just like that. Please stop twisting scripture.
Matthew 4:8 also supports a flat earth,
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; It is impossible to see All the kingdoms of the world from a single mountain, on a spherical earth, however it is possible on a flat earth. So this again, supports a flat earth.
How do you misinterpret the BIble so badly? This is merely stating that satan was able to shew him the kingdom and their power. Where in that Bible verse did it say the earth was flat? Satan(if you believe the Bible) was a powerful being and could easily show him all the kingdoms just like that. Please stop twisting scripture.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Why would you do that when he's not a scientist?Josh1 said:
Your point? Is it okay to lie in order to gain converts? Now Hovind may not be a liar, but he is either deliberately lying or incredibly ignorant. After all, he's no scientist, nor has he put any amount of study into science.
Hovind preys on ignorance. "Tons" of people in the U.S. are scientifically ignorant. He uses that ignorance and/or their preexisting religious beliefs to tell people what they want to hear and to simplify "science" for the people who didn't take the time to learn it. He uses that approach in order to make the uneducated layman feel superior to scientists. He simply tries to make people feel like they know more than those darned educated scientists in order to boost confidence and "convert" people to his misinformation.
I suggest you actually pick up university-level texts dealing with biology and geology, for examples, to educate yourself rather than letting a non-scientist pushing an agenda to do that for you. After all, you wouldn't even have to shell out the money to buy them as there are often many college textbooks in large public libraries.
Upvote
0
Frumious Bandersnatch:It is well established here and on many places on the web that Hovind is a charlatan and his debate challenge is bogus. Do you wonder how someone who has declared bankruptcy can put up 250,000 for a debate challenge.
I think you have misunderstood that comment. Dr.Hovind states:
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
The offer is not for a debate, but for a "beyond a shadow of doubt" proof. But he will schedule a live debate with anybody,including all of you in this forum. So don't be shy.
I think you have misunderstood that comment. Dr.Hovind states:
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
The offer is not for a debate, but for a "beyond a shadow of doubt" proof. But he will schedule a live debate with anybody,including all of you in this forum. So don't be shy.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss:After all, you wouldn't even have to shell out the money to buy them as there are often many college textbooks in large public libraries.
Who do you think wrote the textbooks? Unbiased scientist? I don't think so.
Who do you think wrote the textbooks? Unbiased scientist? I don't think so.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Their only bias is for deducing the most logical conclusion for all available facts.Josh1 said:
Hovind, however, is not a scientist and does not practice science as per the scientific method. Authors of science textbooks are more than often scientists, and practicing ones at that.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
It has already been explained to you that his offer is fraudulent. First of all, what he claims to be "evolution" is in fact not evolution at all but a strawman representation of it. Second is that his offer clearly disregards how the scientific method works when he equates "empirical evidence" with "scientific proof."Josh1 said:
The theory of evolution has been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. It's up to you to educate yourself. College-level texts are a good place to start. That gives a person a foundation of knowledge to start reading the peer reviewed papers in scientific journals to learn more.
So far you've admitted your own scientific ignorance and you've not disputed the fact that Hovind is neither a scientist nor honest. So why learn about science from a man who has been proven wrong so many times?
After all, even his fellow young earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis dispute his credibility.
Upvote
0
I read the scripture literally If you do not accept that literal interpretation, then you are not a biblical literalist, sorry.
I did notice you skipped over most of what I said.
I have a question to you, if we showed DrDino lied to you, would you still believe him?
Josh1 said:
Upvote
0
