Are you going to heaven or hell?

Creation

Colin,

Greetings, I hope this message finds you doing well.

[I'm unsure why you mention honorary doctorates, as that's not what Mr. Hovind has.] Just to make a simple point that when someone does the work, they are recognized for it.

[And how does acceptance of Creationism require any less imagination?] Easy. Your brain knows that when you see a creation of any kind, there is a creator. There is no way it could be more simple than that. Why would you look at a watch, and say there was a watch maker, but look at creation (infinitely more complex) and say it has no maker, it just all arranged itself by mere chance? That makes no sense. You will be a believer one day, because even Darwin himself is now a believer!

[Who says imagination is equal to scientific fact?] Evolutionists. They call it fact, when they have no proof and have never seen it happen. That's called a fairy tale.

I may have cited this before, but it bears repeating: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." So when you stand before God, you can't say "I didn't know!", because you most certainly did.

[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?] I would like to check into these things more, but time is a factor (plus I already know that God is telling the truth). That doesn't mean I won't check into these things, though. And since you gave me more info on where to look, I'll have to see what is there. As for Io losing less than 1% of it's mass, I don't know. But according to Kent, Jupiter and Saturn are still warm, and losing heat quickly. Wouldn't their heat be gone after 20 billion years? I suppose I'll need to see about that, too.

[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.] In the beginning, creation was perfect. Even after the fall, Adam and Eve, and their children, were still in great condition. They had not yet experienced the genetic load (problems) that we now face. So inbreeding wouldn't have caused the trouble for them it does now for us.

I've been wanting to do a Q and A exchange with you for awhile, I hope you are willing. Kent has a great list of questions for evolutionists. May I try a few with you? In all fairness, feel free to pose a few questions for me you feel cannot be answered with regards to creation, God, heaven, hell, or tangents like God in politics, etc.; anything goes. We should agree to keep it to two or three questions each time. Here goes. 1. With what did the first cell [or creature] capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? 2. Which evolved first, the digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juice? 3. How did thoughts evolve? (Can dirt become aware of itself?)

Hi Steve

"1. With what did the first cell [or creature] capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? 2. Which evolved first, the digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juice? 3. How did thoughts evolve? (Can dirt become aware of itself?)"

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. Nobody does for sure. There are a number of competing theories about the origin of life (abiogenesis), which is distinct from evolution. I do not have any strong opinions on how exactly life came to be.

As for dirt becoming aware of itself, no, not as you describe it. It would have to become something vastly more complex than just "dirt." (I am not saying life came from dirt).

Some questions for you: 1. Was incest morally acceptable to God in the days after the fall? 2. Is it morally acceptable to Him now? 3. What is your view on incest? Is there anything wrong with it aside from the genetic problems it creates?

"[And how does acceptance of Creationism require any less imagination?] Easy. Your brain knows that when you see a creation of any kind, there is a creator. There is no way it could be more simple than that. Why would you look at a watch, and say there was a watch maker, but look at creation (infinitely more complex) and say it has no maker, it just all arranged itself by mere chance? That makes no sense. You will be a believer one day, because even Darwin himself is now a believer!"

Let me rephrase the question:

How does acceptance of Biblical Creationsism require any less imagination?

Hey Steve. It's been awile, but I have been reading up on your message board here. Very interesting. I did want to comment on you "which came first...digestive system..." etc. It's so reminiscent of the addage "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I'll pose to you some questions an eight year old girl asked me a few days ago... 1) What is bigger than the universe? 2) Does God have a mom? If so, what happened to her, is she dead? 3) If God doesn't have a mom, how was he born?

I have no problem imagining a situation involving infinity...it's what I believe time, the universe, and the living experience to be. But, if you tell a story that has a definite beginning and end, then how can you include any element of the infinite? This is the problem both Creationism and Big Bang / Evolution run into...God created all things, but who created God? The universe was created by a single atom so full of energy that it exploded, but what created that atom? It is a conundrum...

Wow, I had no idea anyone other than myself and Steve were reading this.