Are you going to heaven or hell?

Oops, used my old name.

--Colin

Wow, Australia? What kind of work do you do by the way? Is that what you're traveling for?

Just to comment on your recent posts: [The guy decided before he even started his PhD, that evolution was false] Even if he did, that is irrelevant. It literally takes the intelligence level of a child to see God's creation and to know sin is wrong, and that all things made have a maker, and thus we answer to Him. So it's OK even if Jonathan did decide this early on, all the better for him. The older one gets, the more hardened his heart becomes.

[The key word here is "unaccredited." It doesn't matter how hard he worked for his degree; if the school is unaccredited, he shouldn't call himself doctor.] I disagree. If I recall correctly, he spent nine years working toward his degree. Like I said, and he said, if you don't like the Doctor title, call him Hey You if you like. You know, it is possible for a school to be unaccredited and still be a great school, and if any given student applies himself there, they can have a perfectly fine education just the same. And if this were a real issue, it should be easy for Kent's opponents to prove him wrong. I've seen 12 of his debates on video, and the brightest college professors (with accredited degrees by the way) lose the battle so badly it's embarrassing. The reason that happens is Kent will present scientific facts that can actually be observed now, and the professors present theories that have never been observed. I've seen it 12 times, I'm telling the truth.

["even you couldn't seriously tell me a pencil sketch is proof of evolution." Even me? What's that supposed to mean?] Sorry, didn't mean for that to sound like it did. I just meant that I know that although you believe the order of the universe, and our bodies, and everything else happened by chance, you wouldn't go so far as to say a drawing is proof of evolution. I don't see how anyone could. Perhaps you didn't reference the drawing, although I thought you did. Jonathan Wells calls it "The ultimate icon" of evolution, the ape to man drawing. Here is where I thought you mentioned it as proof: [You've got little ape-men getting bigger and smarter. You know the dumb little ape men didn't exist at the same time as the big smart ape men; the little ones came earlier. In between were medium ones.] That sounded like a description of the famous drawing. If you were not referring to that, my mistake.

About the Sahara Desert, it would be so much bigger by now if the earth were millions of years old. It's interesting how the age of the desert (and many other things) are the same age as the date of the flood. Same with the oldest organisms. While not proving the age of the earth, all these things are dated back to the biblical flood, when the world had to start over. And if the earth were millions of years old, the desert, trees, and reef, among other things, would all be much, much older.

[You say the population of the world could have been started with 8 people. Even if this is true (and I'm not saying it is), this does not prove that the Earth is young.] The population argument is in fact one of the strongest proofs for the Bible. Say that man appeared one million years ago, and suffered catastrophe after catastrophe, reducing human population. The population now would still be in the trillions. In that time, the population would be ridiculously huge, no matter what kind of numbers you put on death rates and births, etc. This is a huge problem for the evolutionist. On the other hand, 8 to 6 billion people in 4400 years is easily doable. In fact, it's very interesting to note that if you plot the rate of human population using census records, the graph points exactly to where the bible says it would, 4400 years ago with eight people! I love it!

[The oldest known history records do not prove the Earth is young. Even you can see that, right?] Well, let me ask you this: Doesn't it seem strange to you that the oldest known records are the same age as the bible says the earth is? Interesting. There's all kinds of things. For example, it's been said coal formed over millions of years. Oh yeah? Then why do we find all kinds of recent artifacts in the coal beds? And any good geologist can tell you that oil is under such pressure (20,000 psi) it would burst the rocks around it within 10,000 years. They haven't burst yet.

I'll stop there and give you a chance to respond when you get back from your trip. Take care.

Steve

Hi Steve

I'm a paralegal. The Australia trip was vacation. My wife's Australian, we were visitng family. Good times.

You asked Green Meklar how to bold and italicize; as it's not clear that he's coming back, I'll tell you: put the letter b or i in square brackets, then type the text you want bold or italicized; at the end of the text, put the b or i in square brackets again, only with a slash right before the letter, and voila. I don't do this because on this website, you lose the double-space option,.

Jonathan's decision to go to school so he could destroy evolution casts doubt on his objectivity as a scientist; it suggests he is married to his conclusion, which suggests that he'll see what he wants to see. It does not disprove anything he says. (Note again that i did provide a link which attacks his logic on the Archaeopteryx issue.)

As for Hovind, how hard he worked or how fine an education he has is not the issue. He has not earned a PhD, which is the right to present oneself off as a doctor.

The long list of proofs you cite were apparently taken straight from Hovind's website, even in the same order: http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/seminar_introduction.html

They are each and every one of them refuted here, again in the same order: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

I imagine you've read that before, tho.

One thing I'm not clear about: you said the current population of the Earth could have come from 8 people, but in fact, isn't the biblical claim that we all came from two people?

Welcome back

Colin,

Vacation? Cool! I hope you had a good time "down under".

In reference to Jonathan having made up his mind, and thus possibly skewing his view with a pre determined bias with regards to evolution, I will try to explain why this is not a problem here, although I understand your objection. The example is used of a building with 100 rooms. In this building you are looking for a specific object, which we will call truth. OK, so you start searching the rooms, starting with number one. Let's say you find this thing (truth) in room 27. You now need not look in the other rooms. Jonathan, having found the truth, could then proceed with that knowledge in hand. He need not search the other rooms, that is to say keep an open mind as to whether evolution is true, because he has already found out it is a lie.

A Ph.D. can actually be issued without being accredited. You may be surprised to know that some universities have issued honorary Doctorates to people who haven't even gone to school or participated in an accredited program. Why would they do this? Because when a person has done the work, even outside an accredited program, they deserve the same credit, title, degree, etc. Such is the case with Kent's school and others like it. But, like I said, you can call Kent "Bubba" if you want, but the evidence he presents is observable now, and that's what our focus should be on. People with accredited Ph.D.'s are trying to have us believe in something that has never been observed. You have to use your imagination to picture evolution over "billions of years". If you question anybody's degree, I would question the ones that tell you that your imagination is equal to scientific fact.

When you mentioned my proofs coming from Hovind's website, and in order, you made is sound as if you "caught me". I did get the list from a notebook of his. But the facts are undeniable just the same, no matter where they came from. I have seen the other website, or one just like it, and had lost the link to it. I will save this one and refer to it. Does this website account for how footprints of men and dinos are found together, and inside each other? Or why dino bones are found unfossilized? Or why we find modern items in "ancient" coal beds?

When I mentioned us coming from eight people rather than two, I was referring to the bottleneck in human population of Noah's flood, where only eight people survived (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives.) Yes, in the beginning, we did come from two people. You can trust this information for the simple fact that God does not, and can not, lie.

That same God has the power to judge you after you die. If today is your day, are you ready to face Him? I watched a video, and have a book, of an account a man gives where Jesus took him to hell for 23 minutes one night so that he could then warn the world to get right with God and avoid that place. Whether his account is true or not, only him and God knows. But it could very well be. Between his account and the word of God, I would say you have something to fear. A couple things he said are that your senses are enhanced, (so the suffering is that much worse), and you have a keen sense of eternity, much more than you do now. That is to say you better understand the true endless length of your stay in hell. He described how you are torn apart, only to regenerate and be torn again, and so on. You can't breath, and there is no water. Fear is beyond description.

Fear of hell is a good reason to take a step in the right direction, toward God. Being brokenhearted over your sin against God is another. With that, you can truly turn from sin, repenting of all, and find eternal life in Jesus Christ. By His death and payment on the cross on your behalf, and with a little faith on your part, you can be forgiven.

Hi Steve!

It sounds as though you agree with me that Dr. Davis has skewed his objectivity with a predetermined anti-evolution bias. It's just that you think that's OK. All I'll say is, such a worldview is fundamentally anti-scientific. You say he has no need to keep an open mind. What that really means is, no amount of evidence will dissuade him from the "truth" that he already "knows." He clings to this truth. And in science, you can't do that. You always have to be ready to modify or even abandon your ideas in the face of contrary evidence.

I'm unsure why you mention honorary doctorates, as that's not what Mr. Hovind has. He has a PhD from an unaccredited university. No matter what your views of what kind of credibility that should confer, the fact is, it's not the same as a PhD from an accredited university. If Mr. Hovind were to list his PhD on a resume, he'd be required by law to mention that his university was unaccredited, because unaccredited universities might not necessarily demand academic rigor from its students.

Bottom line: there's a societal understanding of the title "Dr." that is independent of YOUR personal view on who qualifies. When you bill yourself as "Dr.", you are saying something about yourself. You are saying, "I am what you, and most people, consider a doctor--I have completed a doctorate from an accredited university." You are creating expectations that you can reasonably expect will result from your use of that title--expectations that you know are untrue.

I must be clear on one thing, though. I do not care that Mr. Hovind does not have a real doctorate. I don't, either; nor do you, as far as I know. That doesn't bar you or I from talking about evolution and creationism. What irks me about Kent is, he CLAIMS to be a doctor. I think his use of the title is dishonest.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about Kent's credentials. I'll just call him Bubba from here on and focus, as he insists, on the evidence. But, I can't help but wonder if he uses the title to draw his opponents into ad hominem attacks. He's right that it's irrelevant to the real issues, but when someone presents themselves as a doctor, and they aren't, that can't be ignored. It's an issue that needs to be addressed, and he made it one. Anyway, enough about Bubba.

"People with accredited Ph.D.'s are trying to have us believe in something that has never been observed. You have to use your imagination to picture evolution over "billions of years". If you question anybody's degree, I would question the ones that tell you that your imagination is equal to scientific fact."

Who says imagination is equal to scientific fact?

And how does acceptance of Creationism require any less imagination? Some Creationsist proofs, including Hovind's, are truly imaginative interpretations of evidence. And when I say imaginative, I mean like Picasso.

Do you use the term "imagination" because we weren't there? You do mention, and you have before, that it's never been observed, as though that makes it impossible to piece together a pretty good account of what happened.

There is evidence. Evolution is the simplest, most parsimonious reading of the evidence there is. Creationism--creation myths in general--are much more the product of human imagination. (Which is not a bad thing, but it doesn't make them true.)

The fact that we weren't there is irrelevant, and that argument applies to both sides anyway, yours and mine.

Think about how your insistence on "being there" would affect our justice system if that were a requirement.

"When you mentioned my proofs coming from Hovind's website, and in order, you made is sound as if you "caught me"."

I'll admit I was a bit annoyed when I wrote that. I'd been researching your "proofs" for several days and writing up a response to each one in my own words. I even calculated how much mass Jupiter's moon Io would lose to Jupiter over 5 billion years (it was a negligible fraction, less than 1%). When I realized you hadn't put in that kind of work, I thought, why should I? However--you did nothing wrong, and you never claimed your "proofs" were anything they weren't (other than proofs), so never mind that. My annoyance was due to my own assummptions being wrong.

By the way: the quotes around "proofs" are not meant to be sarcastic. I only use them because Hovind refers to them as "proofs," and they are not proofs. If I didn't use quotes, I'd be conceding that he is right, which I do not, and which he is not. Hence, the quotes.

"But the facts are undeniable just the same, no matter where they came from."

Undeniable? Did you read the link? Every one of Hovind's "proofs" is blown away! They're all pseudoscience. They're fluff!! Some of them, such as moon dust, are based on old, obsolete and flawed data. Others, such as the "shrinking sun" are based on extrapolating a one-time measurement back over billions of years. Others, such as Io, are based on bad math. Some, such as Jupiter and Saturn losing heat, or the amount of sedimentation on the ocean floor, have explanations that Hovind simply ignores. Some are based on poor logic, such as the assertion that the Earth must be as old as the oldest living organism on it (and note that there are colonies of creosote bushes in the Mojave desert that are around 12,000 years old, although the individual bushes themselves aren't). One of them--that Niagra Falls is relatively young--is actually correct--but so what? The age of Niagra Falls is not the age of the Earth. No one claims Niagra is 4.5 billion years old. So why mention it?

In one way or another, all of Hovind's "proofs" are junk. Is this really the tip of the iceberg?

"Does this website account for how footprints of men and dinos are found together, and inside each other? Or why dino bones are found unfossilized? Or why we find modern items in "ancient" coal beds?"

You're right, those were separate from Hovind's "proofs." I may have missed a few other points you mentioned, feel free to point them out to me.

The link I gave you is part of a much larger website, which has refutations of those points as well. Check this out: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Footprints: see claim CC101, or copy . Unfossilized T Rex bones: see claims CC371 and CC371.1 Human artifacts found in ancient coal beds: See claim CC 120 and 130.

You'll find a fairly brief refutation of these points, as well as links you can follow to more in-depth refutations.

Let me know if these links do not address the specific cases you are referring to. And enjoy the rest of the index as well!

"Yes, in the beginning, we did come from two people."

You've probably anticipated my next question.

What you just said means that there was a whole lot of incest going on in the early days. The third generation of humankind could have only come from the sexual union of brothers and sisters. And as we know, kids from family trees without branches don't usually turn out that well.

I'd say it's extremely unlikely that a population based solely on inbreeding, with no influx of new genes whatsoever, could survive more than a few generations.

And that's it for today. Take care.