Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:44 AM codingsanity

Kent Hovind coming to SA?

There's this lovely guy called Kent Hovind. He's an American preacher with a diploma mill doctorate that he seems to be very proud of. He's regarded by some creationists as a good debater since he literally covers his opponents with tons of arguments supporting his theories. Of course his arguments are rarely scientific and mostly completely false. So false that even Answers in Genesis disclaims their use.

Anyway, mPower Ministries here in South Africa have organised for "Dr" Hovind to come visit our country in order to preach before them. They are denigrating South African scientists who refuse to "debate" with him, a usual tactic. Because holding a fake debate, which is actually a sermon, in front of a fundamentalist church group against a guy with zero scientific credibility sounds like such a compelling thing for a busy scientist to do...

I found out some information about Mr. Hovind that I thought the nice people at mPower should know, so I logged onto their blog and told them. I was polite, did not swear, my comment was on the post topic and yet, due to comment moderation, my comment is not visible 4 days later.

The reason? I can guess. I said something they didn't want their loyal parishoners to hear. It appears that Mr. Hovind will not be coming to South Africa, as his passport has been confiscated by a US federal court. You see, he was arrested on 58 charges including income tax evasion, making threats against investigators and filing false complaints against IRS agents. His wife was also included on 44 of the charges. Just to add insult to injury it appears that his lawyer, Glen Stoll is also in legal trouble for falsely claiming to be a lawyer, and selling fraudulent schemes where he claimed that one could avoid tax by claiming to be a religious organisation.

This is the quality of the man that mPower Ministries wish to bring to South Africa, the man that they're attacking scientists for not debating. Then, to add insult to injury, they attempt to hide the fact that this is happening. Not one mention of it on their blog or web page, and supression of comments that point it out. It seems to me that they're not being very honest at all. However, I don't use comment moderation, so please, if your views are being supressed by this church, you're welcome to post here. In the interests of decency I will delete posts that contain foul language, but I promise to repost them as myself, with attribution, with the obscenity edited out.

Hasn't it come to a pretty pass where the only place you can get the truth out of some churches is to visit the blog of an avowed atheist? The last sentence on the mPower post about Hovind says "The object of these debates is not to host some kind of Jerry Springer show, but in fact to allow truth to be exposed!". Really?!? Truth to be exposed? Such noble sentiments! Such an ethical high ground! Perhaps you'd get more truth exposed if you stopped supressing it yourselves. Frankly, when I posted to their blog I expected them to be hypocrites about this, but it's so sad to see it actually substantiated.

Update

According to the Southern Poverty Law Centre Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books such as Fourth Reich of the Rich and "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion". To be fair to Hovind, I couldn't find the second in his store.

Update 2

It's confirmed that Hovind will not be coming to South Africa due to him being a flight risk. Adding some pretty insane fuel to the fire is Andre Immelman (he of the censored mPower blog), who said South Africans "do not react very nicely to disappointment". Wonder what that means..., is he trying to threaten a U.S. judge? He also stated that his ministries members "will be seeking asylum in the U.S." if Hovinds trip is cancelled. I wonder on earth why the U.S. would accept people so detached from reality that they think that a way of protesting a countries actions is to attempt to flee to it? Makes me laugh. A lot. Not just me, Ed Brayton seems to be amused as well.

"In what has been a very controversial decision here, our new democratic government is poised to introduce evolution into the public school system in the stead of creation after some 47 years of creationism practice," Immelman wrote. "To say that this debate has sharply served to divide the country is really no understatement at all."

Really? Is this what is dividing South Africa these days? Not crime, or the Zuma trial, or race, or what the hell we're doing about the World Cup, or the Gautrain? No, creationism. Strange, I haven't heard a word about this on the radio, nor seen anything about it on TV, or read anything about it in the newspapers. Gosh, I must really, really out of touch.

Alternatively, perhaps Mr. Immelman is a pompous bufoon, who, when denied his treats degenerates into a squalling infant making up stories and threats to try and protect his fragile ego.

Update 3

Now that mPower have actually admitted on their website, but not their blog, that Hovind will not be coming to S.A. they've started a poll where they ask the question "Do you believe that people who have paid for their tickets should donate them?", with the two answers being "No - all ticket holders must claim a refunded of their tickets", and "Yes - ticket holders ought to donate their tickets to the creationist cause".

Let me not get into the legalities of selling someone a ticket to an event, cancelling the event, and then using the money for something else. However, I do feel that this poll appears to show where mPowers interests lie, in the money. I think that they were hoping that a majority of people would vote Yes, allowing them to expropriate the money of the ticket holders. Sadly for them, the results are the opposite.

Update 4

mPower have finally admitted on their blog that Hovind will not be coming to South Africa. I suggest you read the post, since it's quite a good insight into the reason for why creationists are against evolution. It has nothing to do with the evidence per se, and everything to do with a fear of damnation for believing in the evidence. He claims that without a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation that the foundations of Christianity are destroyed. He makes the argument that if we accept that Genesis is incorrect that we must therefore discard the rest of the Bible as well.

You see there are three major possibilities for the authorship of the Bible:

1: The Bible was written by men - it therefore has no real value beyond being a book of history/philosophy/mythology. Obviously Christians of all stripes would be unhappy with this interpretation.

2: The Bible was written by men, inspired by God - In this case the Bible is not neccesarily inerrant, but does contain the gist of Gods message. This interpretation requires a lot of thought to try and separate what is God's Word from the biases and preconceptions of it's writers. Most Christians in the world are happy with this interpretation. The acceptance that the creation story in Genesis is wrong therefore does nothing to denigrate the message in other passages.

3: The Bible is the direct Word of God, complete in all details - In this case if any evidence (i.e. evolution, astronomy, geology, physics, maths) contradicts the Bible, then the evidence must be at fault, somehow. This is the approach favoured by creationists. In a sense, becuase they believe the Bible is the literal Word of God, they have to believe in creationism, and will contort themselves mightily to do so.

This leaves Christians at a bit of an impasse, do they accept a literal and inerrant Bible or not. Contrary to what Mr Immelman and many others believe it is possible to be a true, believing, and good Christian while not agreeing 100% with the Bible. I know because I have met such people, far better and more honest than the impression I get from such guys as Hovind or Immelman.

One way to perhaps look at this is where the literal/inspired approaches agree. Both agree that God was the Prime Mover, that everything we see around us is His creation. They disagree about how this was accomplished, but not about whether God did it. As such, one would have to accept that the Creation itself would be the final word from God. We have no way of influencing in any great degree the wonder of the Universe, but it is well within human power and motivation to tamper with a book.

Given that the Universe does not fit the description of creation in Genesis, one would have to argue that the pure, unadulterated Word of God is contradicting the Bible. As such, I would posit, that the Bible cannot therefore be inerrant. If you insist on this, you call God a liar in His Creation. If you insist on Creation being the truth, then the Bible must be flawed. If the Bible is flawed, then it cannot be inerrant. Therefore the Bible should be open to interpretation. The question that then scares many fundamentalists is how open to interpretation is it? My suggestion would be that one could see it as open to interpretation only where is is contradicted by the Universe itself. This would leave room for a very literal reading of the Bible, except in a very few small areas.

One place that causes a lot of grief is Original Sin. If Adam and Eve were just one end of an evolutionary path, two people amoungst all others, then what is their primacy amoungst people? A Catholic priest I knew described Adam and Eve as the first humans ensouled by God. Before them, humans has the same kind of souls as animals. Adam and Eve, however, were ensouled by God with souls in the image of Him. That, he claimed, was the meaning of "in my image", nothing so crass as physical form, but the soul itself.

Yes, I'm an athiest, but I still find this kind of debate fascinating, especially when it traipses into making scientific claims, as creationism does.

Filed under: Science

Comments

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, July 28, 2006 10:54 PM by J-Dog

Thank you for the update Sean. It's always good to see that the US is not alone in the Wing Nut area. Your guys seems as nutty as ours!

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, July 28, 2006 11:01 PM by codingsanity

Oh boy, tell me about it. I hadn't realised the creationists were so active here. Sorta like when you pick up a rock and are unpleasantly surprised about the horrid crawlies you find there.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:31 AM by Eric

I will not be sorry that Kent Hovind will not be coming to South Africa. However, it appears that mPower is still in denial about this. Last week, posters went up in my hometown (George), advertising the various meetings where he will be putting forth his medieval views on science, life, etc.

There are some creation-scientists (how's that for an oxymoron) in South Africa. A fellow by the name of Phillip Stott is such an example. Stott, for one thing, propagates the view that the Sun (and the rest of the universe - which is only a few light years across) revolves around the earth.

The problem with Hovind is his thoroughly dishonest character. He is convinced that, even when proved wrong, he is always right. This is a trademark of creationists and their numbskull followers. No point in debating with them. Best to let them stew in their own juices.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:51 AM by Lorna

In the words of Kent Hovind himself: "Christians are called to be the salt of the earth, salt hurts when you rub it into a wound". Clearly Kent Hovind is doing a good job. The Bible foretells how there will be a one world order and Dr. Hovind has been exposing his goverments' activities in this area for a long time...

Furthermore his findings are first based on scientific facts, before he relates it back to the Bible. Evolution is a theory based on more theory.

Seems to me that Dr. Hovind is being covered in an Ort Cloud.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Saturday, August 12, 2006 1:47 AM by Jaques

Its very unfortunate that a person with a good mission will go and shoot himself in the foot. As Lorna said, his stuff is based on scientific facts, and if you think I'm lying, maybe you should watch one of his DVD's. Evolution could have been a good theory, but the problem is that scientist so much wants it to be true that the lie about stuff and data and call it fact. There is hundreds things that was suppose to proove evolution that was just disprooved later. Nobody was EVER able to see something becoming something else. And I'm talking about species. A cat never became anything else other than a cat. Maybe a lot of different types of cats, but in the end its a cat.

If you don't believe me, maybe you should go and study these stuff your self. At some stage I even thought that God used evolution to get us where we are, but in the end, as Kent Hovind will put it, its just balloney.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:37 PM by SA Dr.Hovind fan

You evolutionists are real chickens(I trust that wont come as a shock to you, after all, you did come from slime huh?), deep down and all around you're in fact afraid of Dr.Hovind. Kent gives such awesome evidence for creation that you guys cant face him! evolutionists will NEVER, NEVER come up with ANY real evidence for their fairy tale, not even if they had a million years to do so. come on evos, grow up and stop being silly nonsense. if you dont believe me, take a look at kent's dvds.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:44 PM by codingsanity

Lorna and Jaques, I hate to break it to you, but your complete lack of knowledge about evolution comes out quite clearly in your posts. This is why scientists don't like debating creationists, because creationists are so clearly ignorant so much of the time.

"Dr" Hovinds findings are based on outright fabrications. Evolution is a fact AND a theory, science is based on disproving stuff, so faked data doesn't last long (certainly not for 150 years), speciation HAS been observed, expecting cats to turn into not-cats shows a primary school level understanding of biology.

As for SA Dr.Hovind fan, well I have watched Hovinds DVD's. I actually started a little log of how many factual errors and outright misrepresentations I could find. I thought I'd post a few of them. Trouble is, there were so damn many, coming out so thick and fast that I'd struggle to keep the first 15 minutes of the first DVD down to 10 pages or so, so I gave up, since I actually have a day job.

Perhaps one of these days, I'll try and log the scientifically accurate information on his DVD's, I figure a page or two should do it for his entire series. Of course that means I'd have to watch that tripe again.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, August 28, 2006 4:50 PM by codingsanity

Oh yeah, SA Dr.Hovind fan, actually we're BOTH descended from slime, but at least I don't show it so clearly in my everyday discourse. As for being chicken, I'd just like to point out that you're the one posting anonymous insults you snivelling coward.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:35 PM by Jaques

Coding sanity, I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I would like to take you up on your challenge. You give me a list of all Dr. Hovind's errors (factual as you say, and even if it is only the first 15 minutes of his DVD), and I will give you a list of the lies of evolution. And then from there, let’s see whose theory is the most absurd.

I'm not going to try to convince you that creation is the truth. Lets do this your way, without a supernatural being be the Designer and Creator, but only by you proving or me disproving the evolution facts (as you call them).

I am 100% open to evolution if you can come and give me 1 irrefutable fact for evolution that you can prove, and I don’t talk about micro evolution as we see everyday of things changing to adapt to there environment. I talk about evolution you see it. The evolutionists lie so much about their facts, that I must say that if somebody wants to lie so much to make there theory believable, how much more would they do. I’m not a scientist. I just a software developer like I believe you are, but even I can see the flaws in the evolution theory. Let’s call the evolution theory a fact, and see if you can give me that evidence you talk about, and I promise I won’t try to point it to a supernatural occurrence, as long as you can prove to me how it came into existence all on its own.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:22 AM by codingsanity

Okay, no problem. I'll need to download it again, since I deleted them. I'll do that tonight, and it might take me a day or two, so I'll try and have that list for you by Monday.

However, I have my doubts as to what we could agree on. You start off with the assumption that honest hardworking scientists in many, many fields are lying to you, and as such you're likely to discount anything they say. This is in fact the underlying problem that we need to address. Why would so many thousands of scientists in so many separate fields, all with varying faiths, ALL be lying? Why would the courts, such as the Dover v Kitzmiller one, back the scientists up EVERY single time?

You also have to understand how science works before we can move any further on, and it doesn't work by proving stuff, only mathematics does that. You say "let's call evolution theory a fact", well that's wrong, and not what I said. I said that evolution is a theory AND a fact. The fact of evolution is that organisms change over time, that there is a web of common descent, that this took place via small incremental changes over vast periods of time. The theory of evolution attempts to explain these facts. It does this by talking about genetic mutation and natural selection. The theory of evolution and facts of evolution are two different things.

In science, a fact is LESS important than a theory. A fact is simply a piece of information, whereas a theory explains a range of facts, incorporates predictive powers, adds useful knowledge, and has survived disproof, in the case of evolution for over 150 years.

You also said "as long as you can prove to me how it came into existence all on its own", well you see, evolution does not talk about this. What you're looking at with this is either Big Bang theory, or abiogensis (the origin of life). The theory of evolution deals with what hapenned to life once it did exist, not how it began.

So before we begin looking for your proofs, how about you decide what kind of evidence exactly you're looking for? Are you looking for evidence of the Big Bang, of abiogenesis (we don't have any), or of evolution?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:07 AM by Jaques

I am open 100% to your view, if you are 100% open to my view. Let’s leave Kent Hovind's flaws in his videos out as well. Let’s just talk about the scientists. I'm not saying that all the scientists are lying. There is actually scientists' that believe and can prove just the opposite of what evolution claims. Let’s start this off with step 1, and then we work form there on. Let’s start with the FACT that bird life evolved from dinosaurs. Give me some examples that this is true, and then we check this out together. We both try to avoid bias statements by scientists etc., and try to get to the bottom of this.

I am prepared to change my view on this if there are FACTS for it, because a theory might be more important that facts, but a fact means that it is proved. I can have a theory that an orange is bitter sour, but as it comes in contact with saliva it taste sweet-sour, or sweet and there won’t be anybody that will be able to disprove my theory.

I believe in evolution that biological beings can mutate and become let’s say something else, but it can't become something completely different. A dinosaur can't become a bird for instance, and there is no way that a primate can become a human being. That is the evolution that can't be proved, because it doesn't exist. The flu-virus mutates yearly if not monthly. Let’s call that adapt. All biological things can mutate and adapt, true. But how can you come to the conclusion that a bigger change than that can happen.

Just a simple question and I only ask it so that I don’t have to make assumptions. Do you believe in God and Jesus? And I don’t ask it because I want to but this whole thing on a spiritual level, I would just like to know.

Thanks

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:49 PM by Hannes

I recently bought tickets to Kent Hovind's seminar. I was surprised to see that he was charged on tax fraud on the very same day I bought the tickets. I felt huge disappointment mixed with anger I suppose. I'm not a die hard KH fan or anything but I was interested to hear we he had to say nonetheless. I would like to comment on your comments above though.

Can I say that this debate will bear no fruit whatsoever. With all do respect, you are a software developer (I think) and not a scientist. Neither am I. You’re fighting fire with fire. You can read as many books, watch dvd’s and surf Google till Kingdom come but to no avail. If there hasn't been any agreement on this subject in the last 50 years, I doubt that you will be able to reach an agreement now. I do believe in the triune God and in scripture. The validity or falsity of the evolution theory has very little to do with my faith in Christ, quite contrary to your earlier comments on Christians fearing to believe the evidence because of damnation.

You may rebut my statement. I know why I believe and I believed even before I could understand the whole evolution debacle. I still believe, not out of fear or ignorance, but because I see things differently to how you see them. Let me say it straight, this argument is intensely personal, even for an atheist like you. It is not without a sense of irony that your candour comments of Hovind’s character weaknesses point right back at you. Remember this species that you loath so much, this amoeba, this worm; you belong to the same species. You have the same bias in you. But you say even if I had this bias I will never ever act on it, you nevertheless still have this inborn bias. I digress a bit from the original topic because your underlying argument I believe is that you cannot conceive of Christian theism. The Creation VS Evolution debate is only one the many killing fields where you can stand up to be counted as an “either-or”.

Can I tell you what I really (no I mean it, really) grapple to understand. It’s the run of the mill evolutionist’s inability to admit that his own theories are full of gaps. You sugar coat everything you say with the presumption that they are irrefutable fact.

That is evidence not of an unshakable worldview but one that is very vulnerable and unnerved of anything that dares challenge its foundation. You say, but that is what the Christians have been doing all along. We sugar coat everything the Bible says and you are sick of it. Christians do champion what scripture says because it has gained far more credibility as a historical document than you would like to believe.

To put this in different words, scientists propose a unified theory where Einstein’s relativity theory is unified with what appears to be contradictory behaviour observed at a quantum level. Forgive me for using this as an analogy for this debate. Christians will champion what scripture says (akin to “Einstein’s relativity theory”) as well as make observations in the natural world (“quantum level”) that often appear to be contradictory to scripture, but only at first. They haven’t put all the pieces together yet but that doesn’t mean that scripture is false nor do they deny the fact that the natural world has within it some strange contents. I realise this may be too ambiguous for you to be content with but not for me.

I strongly believe that even when theists don’t have 100% deductible evidence for a creation theory, they can make a reasonable decision to believe scripture that is based on inductive arguments. Likewise, you yourself are limited to inductive arguments that cannot convince beyond all doubt. I suggest you read an excellent book from Prof. Ronald H. Nash (Faith & Reason). I quote; “Once one leaves the arena of purely formal reasoning for the world of blood, sweat and tears, one is required to abandon logical certainty for probability”.

Also, “but even though no worldview can rise above logical probability, it may still be believed with moral certainty. A single proposition or system of propositions that is only probable in the logical sense may still generate certainty in the psychological or moral sense. Rational probability and complete or perfect moral assurance are by no means incompatible. We are morally assured that there was a man named George Washington, though the rational evidence for his existence is only assured…The arguments for Christianity - though but probable in rational strength, move the Christian to act upon the supposition of the truth of the Christian faith”.

In conclusion, you interpret the facts in a certain way because that is what you want to believe. I see and interpret the facts in a different way because that is what I want to believe. You are looking for the high ground here and you will not find it. Someone once told me that your theology should enable you to cope with everything that life throws at you. Your theology or worldview causes you to take the “high ground” of rational thinking. Not leaving anything open to what you cannot fathom. I believe in a Creator who designed and put boundaries on my intellect. I admit I have limitations but my designer created me for a purpose and he will bring it to completion. Codingsanity, you have a purpose too significant to waste on arguments with Christians on evolution. Even if creationism doesn’t have all the facts, I don’t want to believe what you believe. The very intellect you rely on to rationalise the God of the Christian out of existence will leave you one day. Death is the great leveller and life will throw this one at you whether you believe in evolution or not.

Your worldview I have to admit is terrifying. You just haven’t realised it yet.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:30 PM by codingsanity

Hoo boy, this looks like it's going to be fun. Okay first off let's start with Jacques. First off, the vast majority of scientists of ALL faiths accept evolution, but that doesn't really matter since it's not a popularity contest. Where it does have bearing is on your assertion that somehow evolution is a conspiracy. Once again, I have to ask that if you truly believe this, what possible motive can you think of for a committed Christian to be involved in a conspiracy of lying and deception against their own faith? Do not doubt that Christians study evolution, many many do and have contributed to evolutionary theory.

I'd rather start with this. If you're going to discount everything that scientists say because you believe there is a vast conspiracy, then everything sorta falls down there. So let's start with why so many thousands of scientists everywhere in the world, of all different faith, from numerous disciplines support evolution. Why are the naysayers a tiny (albeit vocal) minority, almost entirely from one faith and to be exact, one faction of that faith? Why are the naysayers in almost every instance talking outside their area of expertise? Let's look at this credibility first, since everything hinges upon that.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:17 PM by codingsanity

Unfortunately Hannes, there has been very wide agreement for the last 100 years about the validity of evolution. The backlash against it is based entirely on faith and not at all on knowledge or understanding, and as such can be said to come from ignorance.

Interestingly, the damnation comments came from Hovind, I was reporting what he was saying, in fact I was pointing out that (unlike what Hovind claims) many Christians have no problem discarding the concept of an inerrant Bible and keeping a strong faith, in other words that I COULD conceive of a Christian theism that discarded the inerrancy of the Bible, and had in fact met people who had this type of Christianity. I'm really impressed how you managed to read 100% diametrically opposed to what I actually wrote. Is that this bias you're going on about?

As for science not admitting it has gaps, in fact it does admit this the whole time. It is not an authoritative source. It makes mistakes, and it doesn't completely explain everything. Scientific theories are fully supported by the evidence we have, and as such have a high degree of confidence in them. They're the best knowledge we have at this point in time. Something may come along that will require a rethink down the line, but it's unlikely with such massively supported theories as evolution or relativity that said rethink will involve large changes, more likely they'd be tweaks to the theories.

So science likes challenges, it thrives on them. If I challenge your Scripture though, that's out of bounds. Now, which is dogmatic exactly? You see science is based on testing against reality, it's a description of the world around us, tested against that world around us. There aren't two realities, there's one. If there is a table in a room, we would both see it no matter what our beliefs. Creationism is sorta like someone in that room turning around and not looking at the table and refusing to turn around to look at it. You can call this bias, you can call it belief or your viewpoint or whatever the hell you like, but the fact of the matter is that your viewpoint simply does not accord with reality.

I have no problem with you believing that, but I don't like it when guys like Hovind try and foist this falsehood on others. Especially with a guy like Hovind who is knowingly dishonest, keeping on using arguments he's been shown are incorrect. At least you and Jacques and the others are likely honest in your beliefs, as am I.

I don;t want to force you guys to believe different than what you do. Frankly if you know that nothing I type will change your viewpoint, then stop posting questions or arguments. If however, you honestly do want to know the science behind this stuff, then I'll happily help out whoever asks to the best of my ability.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:30 PM by Jaques

Sorry, I haven't read the post from Hannes, or your last post. I first want to respond to your second last post.

I don't believe there is a conspiracy. All I believe is that somebody started this theory in the 1700's and made some claims on this topic, and from there on a vast majority of scientists support this, and a lot of the support is actually based on false facts. So can we continue our discussion from the following perspective? I will not Bias if you can give me any Facts regarding evolution as I explained in my post. As a Christian I believe my bible, and the flaw with evolution is that it turns everything upside down when it comes to the creation. So if you do not believe in the creation, then there is a problem, because the way genesis explains the creation is different of what evolutionists believe it happened. But as I said, let’s leave everything of how it actually came to pass, as none of us have conclusive evidence of how it actually happened. Let’s just do this thing the way I’ve explained, and work from there on. Give me some examples that proves evolution (and I’m going to name it Macro evolution) where a bird came from a dinosaur etc.

Thanks

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:58 PM by Jaques

Ok, I've read the other two posts now as well. I as a Christian believe in the Bible. Every word of it is true to me, without exception. I however would like to see the evidence for evolution, and as I said are 100% open as long as it is proven.

On the other hand, please confront my Scripture as you put it, and I will try to help you out to the best of my ability.

Can I ask you a quick question Code Sanity? Was there a time in your life that you believed in God, and as an atheist (I'm making that assumption now), don't you believe in Satan an after life (or death)? It’s just a question, nothing I want to pursue here. Just curios.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:59 PM by codingsanity

I have to dash out, and will address the other issues in the morning, but I thought I'd start with the fulfilling of curiosity ;-D

Yes, I did once believe in God, I was brought up in the Catholic faith. I began questioning my faith in my teens, flirted with agnosticism and then finally settled on atheism when I hit about 20. Believe it or not, I was also born again when I was in high school. Call it a crisis of faith. First I went the one way, then the other ;-D

As for Satan, no I don't believe he exists any more than God, Zeus, or Mithras exist. Nor do I believe there is an afterlife. I think that our consciousness is a function of our living brain. When our brain ceases to work, the consciousness will end. End of story.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:42 AM by Hannes

Salutations,

Firstly, let’s recap. The critics against evolution I believe are using scientific methods to vindicate their theories. It’s maybe an oversimplification to say that they base it entirely on faith. Please resist the temptation to see Kent Hovind as the ultimate representation of a creation scientist. Many creation scientists have scrutinised his work and disagree with him on several points.

Secondly, yes, I agree. You do believe and I agree there are Christian “types” that don’t take the Bible as the inerrant word of God. There aren’t that many I know personally. I myself had some wild ideas about Genesis even though I was already saved as a believer. I have since then come to believe God must have extraordinary good reasons for giving only two rather short chapters on the creation account in Genesis, especially in the age of knowledge that we are in…. It’s a case of “God says” and the world says “did God really say?”

Thirdly, the bias I’m referring to is simply to make a point – the point being that our human inclination is to be corrupt. It’s an inborn trait and I don’t care if you are a loyal tax paying citizen or not, we all share in a fallen human nature. You have the same propensity to err (“sin”) than the next person.

Fourthly, I’m glad you admit that you have not yet stumbled upon the “Holy Grail” of evolution theory. I’d like to ask if you could give me an example of your best possible “silver bullet” argument in favour of evolution as well as evolution’s biggest possible shortcoming (you admit there are shortcomings). I know there might be a potpourri of arguments, but surely one must stand out in your mind as being the most compelling. It might still be a fruitless exercise, but I enjoy this science stuff as much as you do. I have a couple of topics in the back of my mind that I could utilise in my attempt to propagate creation science. It’s not really a pet topic of mine but I’ll give it a shot.

Lastly, you hit the hammer on the nail when you say it’s not an authoritative source. That poses a problem on both sides. Christians will use the Bible (plus nothing, minus nothing) and unfortunately you view the Bible as having only partial validity as a historical document. That means and by the sound of it, you are only interested in scientific explanations. I do however think that you’re limiting yourself if you depend entirely on scientific data. You could apply apologetics and the philosophy of religion with all of its elements e.g. theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and anthropology to come to the conclusion that there is a God and belief in him/it is perfectly rational. In addition it proposes a worldview with coherence (meaning the Christian’s account of reality best fits what we experience in our inner and outer world). If there is a God then He can pretty much say and do what he wants…even create the world according to Genesis.

There are a couple of ways I could go about this:

1) Use scientific explanation to refute evolution’s claims.

2) Build a case for creation theory indirectly by building credibility for scripture as the complete word of God (the whole Bible including Genesis)

3) Appeal to your conscience as an ex-Christian in an attempt to convert you back to Christianity.

There are difficulties with each of these:

1) With scientific proof - the authoritative problem exists. We can quote as many “big guns” as we like but their credibility will always be in question. They might very well have doctorates and pHD’s but we are sceptical nonetheless (not of their credentials, but in the quality of their research). Secondly, I’m not a scientist so I won’t necessarily understand the proof being presented and won’t be able to scrutinise everything properly.

2) Building a convincing case for the complete word of God by using apologetics and philosophy - This is what I’d like to propose but you don’t seem to be interested in this school of thought. The concepts aren’t that alien and their ultimate intention are to make things plain. If successful you will at least have an intellectual recognition of God’s existence.

3) Lastly, I’d like to know more about your apparent divorce from religious faith. I gather from your last comment that you’ve experienced some disappointment with your faith and you’ve since found something better. For what its worth I grew up in the Dutch Reformed Church and I’m currently part of a non-denominational church. I believe that a true Christian’s salvation is secure. Once you are born again you cannot lose your salvation. Man cannot undo God’s salvation. He accomplished it and hence we cannot lose it. So if you indeed believe that you were born again, I’d like to know why you say so.

Each of these approaches will directly or indirectly touch on the evolution subject. I realise that the probability of convincing you on each of these topics can be arranged in descending order of; 1) science 2) philosophy 3) religion. Then again I could be wrong…

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:47 AM by Jaques

Hannes, I see that you are somebody that speaks with insight. Can I just add to your statement that you cannot lose your salvation. A person cannot lose what he did not earn, and you cannot earn your salvation. It is totally out of grace that we are saved, and it is a decision that you have to make, and I agree fully with you that you cannot lose it for the one exception. But lets not go into that

Thanks for your answer coding sanity. Lets do this debate and maybe we both can learn something from this.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, September 01, 2006 8:51 AM by codingsanity

Exactly, [from wikipedia] "Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly."

So science is saying one thing and it seems to a literal reading of Genesis that God is saying another. However, this could simply be that God did not intend for Genesis creation story to be read literally. In such a fashion you could even accept the inerrancy of Scripture as well as the reality of evolution.

I generally see oppostion to evolution coming from three main tacks, one is the Genesis story of the creation of the world. The second is the creation of Man. The third is not biblical per ser, simply that people cannot accept that they are not anything more than an animal.

The Genesis story of the worlds creation is quite simply false in a literal sense. It is contradicted not by evolution, but by physics, cosmology, relativity, geology, astronomy, in fact pretty much everything we know about the world and the universe. It has as much validity as the passages in the Bible which speak of the Earth revolving around the Sun, a flat Earth, or pi being exactly 3.0. If read literally we see that they are incorrect. If one is to assume that the Bible is inerrant, one must therefore look for allegorical meanings to these passages.

The creation of Man as a direct act is indeed contradicted by evolutionary theory, as well as the fossil record. However, as I stated before, this passage could be read as to describe the ensoulment of Man.

Finally people cannot accept that they are animals. Well we are, but I also like to think we are better than animals, not neccesarily due to any divine intervention, but simply because we choose to be better. Our connection with the rest of Life on Earth is enriched by evolution, we are all of us to some degree or another, cousins.

We exist in a Universe billions of light years across which has existed for billions of years, and was born in a fiery conflagration, an explosion of creative power. Our world has played host to some incredible beasts, and now we are here to appreciate the grandeur that is around us and before us. The God of a literal Genesis is a small tinkerer God, the God of this Universe that we see would be so awesome as to be beyond comprehension.

Imagine the power and foresight required to set up the Universe in such a way that the unfolding of it's natural laws leads inexorably to us? Not interfering at every step to fix the mistakes you made, but the perfect billiards shot across billlions of years. This is one of my problems with fundamentalist belief, they make God so insignificant compared to what he would seem if his Creation was truly appreciated in all it's glory.

So in a sense, I guess I'm trying to use religion to convince you of the validity of evolution ;-D Ironic huh?

As for trying to convince me back to the Church, I don't think there's much hope of that. I'm perfectly happy without religion in my life thank you very much, plus I treasure my lazy Sundays ;-D

Seriously, even if you're right, and due to my born-again conversion so many years ago, I come to stand before the God of the Bible and he points me into Heaven, I'd reject it. My original reasons for doubting were largely moral, my atheism has since evolved away from just a simple rejection of God, but that's how it started. Any God who can torture any person for eternity has no right to be worshipped. No action can ever justify eternal torment. Not even Hitler would deserve such a fate. And then to mete it out for the inconsequence of not accepting his Son as personal Saviour? Hah! As I said, my original objection was moral.

These days, I simply just don't believe. There's a joke that we're all atheists, about such gods as Zeus and Hera and Loki, it's just that I'm an atheist about one more god than you ;-D

I would personally put the chances of you converting me to worship Jehova as the same as me being converted to worship Zeus. To me, they're one and the same, a mythology.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, September 01, 2006 10:20 AM by Jaques

I'm sorry to hear that, and it is a shame. Ask yourself this question. You have a father that loves you very much. It’s your choice to love him, and you can even reject him. He told you when you were born that he loves you, and nothing you would do will ever change that. Your father told you however, that if you reject him, that you will have to go and sit in your room, and think about all you have done wrong for the rest of your life.

You see it is your choice to reject him, and if you make that choice it was because you wanted to make that choice, and not because you were forced to make that choice. Is your father unfair now if you live the consequence? If you murder somebody, and you are caught, is it unfair that you will go to jail for that? There is a choice and for that choice there is a consequence. And that is that. You cannot jump out of a plane without a parachute and expect that you will live after you hit the ground. Everything in this life has consequences, and what if you are wrong about God, and there is a God that gave you this choice, and you made the wrong one. Remember everybody that believes God is only love makes a mistake. He IS love yes, but He will not be mocked. He is slow to anger, but He can get angry. Why do you think Jesus came? It’s because man can't keep there side of the bargain. Jesus was the Lamb that was slaughtered in your place so that you don't have to go to hell. Isn't that an easy choice?

I hope that you can see this, and maybe from your side just out of curiosity ask God to reveal Himself to you, to take you in His arms and just smother you with His love. Maybe that will help.

I still want to talk to you about the evolution though, and I will give you a few facts on how physics, cosmology, astronomy etc actually points to an intelligent designer instead of evolution, and then you can go and look it up.

Have a great weekend

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, September 01, 2006 2:44 PM by codingsanity

There's a pretty big difference between sitting in a room and being consigned to eternal damnation! My point was simply that the punishment is so extreme compared to any possible crime that it was immoral. I will not be bullied by some psychopath deity into believing in them by threats of eternal torment. Besides which, what if you're wrong and Zeus is the One True God? Then my belief in Jehova could get me fried too...

Look, I appreciate your desire to save my soul, it's quite touching, but I assure you that as far as religion is concerned, I'm a lost cause. Keep in mind that the moral indignance against eternal torment as a punishment was only the very start of my doubting my beliefs. Since then I've moved on quite a bit. Even if you somehow convinced me that consigning a sentient being to never-ending damnation was not entirely morally reprehensible, it still wouldn't affect my stance. This was merely the issue that started my rejection of God, now I simply just don't believe in him at all. I'm no more likely to ask him to reveal himself to me than I am to ask the Easter Bunny.

I don't desire to change your beliefs, but what I am trying to do is point out that your beliefs as they stand now and science are incompatible but don't have to be. If you wish to stick with a pure literal reading of Genesis, I'm fine with that, but don't try and call it science. Just say, "I disagree with science on that". There's no shame in saying such a thing, in fact it's honest and forthright. What's dishonest and underhanded are these attempts that some people do to try and corrupt science to say what they want it to say.

I struggle to understand why some people of religious faith attempt this corrupting of science. Since I generally believe that most people are good, I guess that most of them honestly believe the pabulum they're promoting and genuinely cannot understand why only people of their faith take them seriously. You must understand that to anyone who understands even the outlines of evolutionary theory, most of these so-called disproofs are frankly amateurish. They're designed not to convince someone like me, but to convince someone like you, someone who already believes, to reinforce your beliefs by telling you that all this doubt and uncertainty doesn't actually exist.

The world itself, God's own Creation, says that it is billions of years old. In the very rocks this is shown again and again. Anyone telling you different is frankly either misinformed or utterly dishonest. There IS a hierarchy of fossils, from simple older forms to more complex forms. There is a hierarchy of DNA, very similar to what we induct about relationships from the fossil record, this was predicted by evolutionary theory. Macro-evolution IS micro-evolution, this is what many people just don't seem to get, it's just micro-evolution over millions and millions of years. There is NO evidence of a world-wide flood, although the theories about the creation of the Black Sea are intriguing. The speed of light is a constant, we have measured galaxies billions or light years away, so the Universe must be billions of years old.

All of these things are proclaimed by the very Creation itself. I'm always confused at how someone claiming to believe in a Creator God can state that some book written by human hand is greater than the actual Creation itself. Humans have the power to change, forge, and manipulate books, read up about the Council of Nicea for more info on how this applies to Scripture. However, we do not have the ability to move stars, change the physical constants or fake the dates of certain materials. So, which should be the more authoratative source? The Creation or the Bible? My belief would be that in matters relating to the Creation, surely the Creation itself should be the final authority?

As for the intelligent designer stuff, please, by all means send it along. Keep in mind that I've probably read it before. I read a helluva lot (about 4-5 books/week), I'm well aware of the "evidence" touted by guys like Hovind and the Answers in Genesis folks, as well as Intelligent Design theory, Behe and Dembski. I think the point I'm getting to is that I'd be surprised if you found an argument that was new to me, and more surprised if I actually thought it had any validity ;-D

I just don't want to waste your time. Oh yeah, and about the wasting of time, seriously, give up on the conversion attempts please, it's starting to get a bit old. I respect your beliefs, and I'd appreciate some reciprocation on that score.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, September 04, 2006 11:12 AM by Jaques

Codingsanity. Who tried to convert you to anything here? I didn't try to convert you once. I've asked you for evidence of evolution, but it seems like you can't give me any. And you know what, if you have read so many books as you claim, you must be pretty dumb not to see that all that Darwin and all the people that started the whole evolution theory claimed can't still be proven. I read a lot as well and there was one stage where I also believed in evolution. The only difference was, that I believed God started the whole process be giving the perfect environment, and from there live evolved. You know what. I don't even think that I want your soul saved. It might seem harsh, but for somebody that is so "educated" like you are and still can't see the truth is probably just a lost cause.

Enjoy your life, and think about this. If you see in the next few years a few nations that are going to get slaughtered when they try to wipe Israel of the map, think about this day.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, September 04, 2006 8:06 PM by Hannes

Hi Jaques, you mean well and I agree with everything you say. You just need to bear with this bloke. He is human after all...He reads a lot but he needs the lavatory as much as the next person.

Hi Codingsanity,

We have much to discuss. Forgive my slight intermission.

The atheist’s worldview is closely knit to naturalism which asserts that nothing exists outside the material, mechanical (that is non purposeful), natural order.

William Halverson wrote; Theism says “In the beginning God”; naturalism says;”In the beginning matter”. If the theoretical goal of science – an absolutely exhaustive knowledge of the natural world were to be achieved, there would remain no reality of any other kind about which we might still be ignorant. The ultimate realities according to naturalism, are not the alleged objects of the inquiries of theologians, they are the entities that are the objects of investigations by chemists, physicists, and other scientists. To put the matter very simply, materialism is true.

I’ve read your comments carefully and here are a couple I put together in order to make a point. These are your words…

a) “God could have meant Genesis allegorically as opposed to giving a literal interpretation.”

b) “The God of a literal Genesis is a small tinkerer God, the God of this Universe that we see would be so awesome as to be beyond comprehension. “

c) “So in a sense, I guess I'm trying to use religion to convince you of the validity of evolution”

d) “All of these things are proclaimed by the very Creation itself”

Prof. Ronald Nash writes (Faith & Reason); The Christian’s major competitor in the West is Naturalism. It helps to remember two things about naturalism;

1) It can assume different forms or use different language; sometimes it can require a little effort to unmask the naturalistic presuppositions underlying a particular system.

2) Assorted naturalists can be inconsistent, just like everyone else. Therefore it is possible that particular naturalists may cling to beliefs (especially beliefs about normative matters) that are logically incompatible with, or cannot be justified in terms of their touchstone proposition.

I understand the principal of your arguments but your initial position that you claim to be an atheist is contradicted by your very own words. Whether you have done this knowingly or unknowingly, I do not know but I suggest you either restate your initial position or you cease to use arguments that cannot stand on the basic foundation of your worldview. Therefore any argument you conveniently borrow from the world of the theist is undermined by your touchstone proposition – there is no God. Forgive me for driving the point so far but it’s necessary that you get a clearer fix on your worldview and realise the ramifications.

The apologist for the Christian world view will attempt to show the naturalist how beliefs or values that are important to the naturalist cannot easily be assimilated into his world view. Of course, the apologist for naturalism will try and do the same to the Christian.

Nash writes again;” But if we can free the word (“supernaturalism”) from all such associations, it can be useful in pointing to the fact that the naturalist’s picture of reality is incomplete. Reality is not a closed box or system, the universe is not forever closed to reordering from a level of reality more ultimate than nature. There is a reality that transcends the natural and that reorders the natural from “outside”. The word supernatural is a perfectly good word to describe such a reality”.

You say OK but that’s not really the point I’m trying to get across. I’m saying that the Genesis account of scripture is scientifically inaccurate. Well my friend, if you open your “closed system” to incorporate God into it there are a variety of possibilities, some of which will even have a degree of scientific support. The Christian’s interpretation of the creation account I believe will mostly be literal because what the Christian can infer from God’s character throughout scripture is that when He says a day, he means “a day”. It’s an account of real events, not an allegorical interpretation such as is needed in prophetic books like Revelation.

As for your statements on the glory of God’s creation through evolution, if that was indeed God’s method, I would have absolutely no compunction to doubt the gloriousness of God. Unfortunately, I don’t support it because it has evoked exactly the opposite behaviour from its following. You’ve discarded God altogether and God hasn’t received any glory…Don’t tell me that’s because of fundamentalist Christianity. If it is then evolutionists need more faith and less worry about the Christians and more worry more about bringing glory to their God.

Regardless of everything that has been said up to now, I would still like to hear your most compelling argument in favour of evolution and your theory’s biggest possible shortcoming. If you believe that all the arguments are equally compelling, pick your favourite one. For practical reasons we won’t be able to consider all of the arguments and since you initiated this debate, you might as well have the honours for presenting first…Jaques and I (non-scientists ourselves) will consider and rebut after which we can each present a single scientific argument in favour of creationism. How does that sound?

On a personal level I want to quote Nash again; “It is difficult to see any common ground between these two competing systems. Fortunately, it is possible for there to be common ground between individual persons. While the basic presuppositions of these two systems clash at every point, the adherents of these competing world views may share enough in common to leave open at least the possibility of discussion, dialogue, and perhaps even a little persuasion. Unless such common ground at the level of individual persons (not systems) does exist, there is no point in advocates of competing systems trying to reason with each other…

I know you said that our efforts to convert you to Christianity are getting a bit old but I would like to try nonetheless…The reasons you gave for not believing are understandable. I’ve wrestled much with God on the matter of hell. In fact I still do…The problem is that in spite of my inability to comprehend the warranted severity of damnation, I have to be more concerned with the way things are and less concerned with the way I want things to be…I’m not so naïve as to think that you will accept this at face value but you can recognise the fact there are many things you have to contend with in this life that you do not understand and don’t particularly enjoy. You just have to take it as it comes. You don’t want your body to die but you have to admit that it probably is going to. It’s very much like your analogy of the room. You and me both are standing in this room looking death straight in the face, yet you say I don’t believe you are real because I don’t like you…Death will smile at you whether you look him in the face or not.

You might say this is a very poor comparison equating physical death to eternal damnation. Indeed, death probably sets you free from suffering and it would be a blessing in disguise. As you’ve mentioned before, you propagate the doctrine of annihilation; when your brain dies, your consciousness ends. If true, you will not be held accountable for your actions by any psychopathic deity. A Christian, quite contrary to what he always wants to believe knows that God will judge every soul either to heaven or to hell. Let me not make hell any less pleasant than it really is. In fact, it probably is beyond what we can imagine. Death is an appropriate description of what it is. Scripture even refers to damnation as the second death. A reality in which you will have perfect consciousness but regrettably one in which you will experience death in every sense of the word, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

A quote from CS Lewis (Mere Christianity) - All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts - to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable, but I must say what I think true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort, it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it’s no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through the dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth - only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and in the end, despair.

As for your choice dilemma - even if you were a theist, you wouldn’t know what God to believe in (Jesus Christ vs Zeus example). Well, that’s an exercise in apologetics and the philosophy of religion. I’m quite confident that Zeus is not a problem because what you can expect (within reason) from a God is that he demands worship and have a following. I’m not that familiar with the modern day following of mythological gods. It’s far more advisable to choose a worldview that is coherent. The Christian faith is a rational faith that is coherent. History (BC and AD) strongly suggests that the Bible has accurately described the outcome of past events and it has a great deal to say about events to come. It’s interesting that your example uses a Roman god. Apparently the method of crucifixion was essentially a Roman torture method so severe that it was never used to execute the death penalty on Roman citizens.

In conclusion, I cannot give you a soft gospel that pats you on the back. I cannot say I really support your beliefs because I have much to say about where they will lead you. I know you said you were born again but clearly you never were. Misguided people can lead you through the sinner’s prayer and tell you that’s that – you are born again! Indeed one prayer does it but it must be accompanied by repentance and belief.

“The world contains a lot of people who believe that the essential claims of Christian theism are true but who have never taken the additional step of coming to believe in the divine Person whose incarnation, death, and resurrection are the point of the whole thing. C. Stephens says; It is clear then that what is necessary to become a Christian is not merely acceptance of a proposition on the basis of evidence, but a change in a person’s whole orientation to life”.

Also, from what I know about the Roman Catholic Church (this is really touch and go) is that God is not into worshipping popes, cardinals, bishops and Mary. I’m not saying all Catholics are hell bound. Indeed I believe through their preaching of the gospel message, some do get saved. It’s what you grew up with but like Martin Luther (not King), you have just cause not to support everything they say and do. I can love you as a person because that is what God asks of me. He does not suggest that I love you, He commands it. God loves you and He has made a way. He uses foolish people like me and Jaques to reveal a little bit of himself. You are not a lost cause…

Finally, the gospel message;

God in eternity past foresaw the future sin and consequent just damnation (apart from his grace) of the human race that he would create, and he planned then and there to save lost, helpless and hopeless sinners. Though all deserved his eternal condemnation, he graciously chose people that would comprise a great host – it would include, in the end, men and woman from every tribe, tongue, people and nation! – and he set out in love, to save them from their sin.

To accomplish their salvation, he chose his very own Son to enter human existence as the incarnate God-man, to live a perfect life, and to offer himself as a sinless sacrifice for the sins of others, paying the penalties that each of them owed as their sin was imputed to him in his death on the cross. By his resurrection from the dead, God vindicated his Son as the victor over sin and death. And through repentance of their sin and faith alone in this conquering Saviour, all who so savingly believe may be justified before their righteous God, be assured of God’s presence with them through all of life now, and in the end receive eternal life through his name.

Here is my email address if you want to contact me and continue along these lines (smitko@telkomsa.net).

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:21 AM by codingsanity

Mmm, perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that you were trying to convert me Jaques. As for the evidence, I'm happy to give you some links (I strongly suggest http://www.talkorigins.org/ as a starting point), but we were in fact discussing how you would out of hand discount anything a scientist said about science, and how I would discount anything a priest said about science. Until that credibility gap is closed evidence is pretty useless "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

Perhaps I do have to be stupid not to see that evolution is a gigantic hoax, however at least I can count a very large amount of very clever fellow-travellers in my dumb journey through life. I will happily carry on without my soul being saved, and you will carry on in ignorance about science.

As for the Israel comment, I really enjoy this excitement that fundamentalists have when war and death are brought up, it allows me to know that they are immorral beings. It's not really an excitement so much as an anticipated schadenfreude I guess, but is still a despicable emotion.

Oh and "Jaques", I hate to break this to you so late in the game, but it's actually spelt "Jacques". I didn't want to say anything before since we were pretending to be nice, well I was trying to, and you were just being rude.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:23 PM by Jaques

Codingsanity, I’m sorry if I was rude. I was cross with you because of what you said. I trully didn’t pretend on my side to be nice. I was sincere in that. My name is actually spelled without the “c”, so it is not me that just can’t spell. I told you from the beginning I am open 100% for any scientific proof of evolution. Please let’s start with that. I don’t want to go to a site and read all these things. Do what Hannes said. Choose your favorite, and let’s discuss it from there.

Secondly, don’t think that all fundamentalists are immoral. It breaks my heart to see what is happening in the Middle East. But you know what, all this has been prophesied over 2500 years ago, and now everything is coming to pass. How is that possible?

Let’s resume with the debate that you started and see where we end up, ok

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Thursday, September 07, 2006 4:55 PM by codingsanity

Apology accepted. I'm busy writing a long response to Hannes and you, the problem is you guys bring up so many points in each post that it takes me quite a while to address them the way I'd like to :-|

I'm very, very busy right now unfortunately, so I'd really appreciate some patience in this regard. I promise I haven't forgotten you guys.

I'm glad to hear you are horrified about the Middle East situation as I am. Some utterly sick people are looking forward to a widening of the war hoping that the ensuing carnage will result in the beginnings of Armageddon.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, September 08, 2006 7:24 AM by Jaques

I will leave it at this and give you time for your response. Just one point. Armageddon is not going to happen for quite a while. What is happening in the Middle East is the beginning of the Ezekiel prophesies in Ezekiel 38 and 39. The reason why it breaks my heart is because there are so many people that are not saved, and they are walking right into a death trap. I'm not even sure that they know this but it’s true. The whole Israel thing is nothing compared to what is coming CS. Just for your own curiosity (and if you have a bible otherwise you can download e-sword for free from www.e-sword.com) read those two chapters in Ezekiel, and go and read up on Gog and Magog. Then you will see what I mean. It’s exiting times in a sense that the end is nearing, but it is very sad that so many people are about to lose there lives. Armageddon is going to be much worse than what is about to happen. I'm not sure this Ezekiel thing is going to happen in the next 10 years, but it is looming. I don't think Armageddon will last very long either. There will be so much blood that it will flow like a river for two hundred miles, and deep that it will touch the head-bands of horses.

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Friday, September 08, 2006 12:11 PM by Hannes

Hey Jaques, please don't leave me like that again. It's lonely out here. Codingsanity is good company but he doesn't seem to write anymore...

Interesting on the prophecy side. If you want to read more, check out the work of Peter W. Stoner. He's a mathematician who calculated the probability of fulfilling the new testament biblical prophecies - http://www.geocities.com/stonerdon/science_speaks.html

Codingsanity, no rush on the arguments. I would like to make one ammendment to my previous response, that is Zeus was a Greek god and his Roman equavalent was Jupiter. You could draw the same parallel but just to clarify. My interesting fact could alternatively be that the new testament was written in Greek...

The prophesy remarks that Jaques made reminded me of this Stoner fellow. He does have very plausible explanations for the Genesis account. He gives three different possibilities with the greatest probability residing with one. My personal understanding of the Genesis account is more akin to a literal interpretation incorporated with the knowledge that God can do what he wants. Stoner proposes a possible combination of both long and short periods...

At least three different interpretations of the days of Genesis are in common use: (1) That the days are twenty-four-hour consecutive days. This is at once ruled out by geology. (2) That the days are geological ages (e.g., the Devonian period would be one day). I think that this agrees very well with the facts of science, but it would imply that the creative acts of God were slow directive influence, This does not sound like the passage cited from Psalm 33. (3) That the days are the great changes in the sequence of fossils. There is one of these great changes in the fossil sequence corresponding to every act of God recorded in Genesis. After one of these changes fish appear. after another birds appear. after another mammals, etc. If God made new forms of life at one of these and then made no new forms until the next great change and there again introduced new forms, the time involved in these changes would then be the days of creation. The evidence in the geological layers and fossils seems to decidedly favor the last interpretation.

It is not necessary for one of these explanations to be true and the others false. It is possible for some of the days to be of one type, and some of another.

My own personal belief is that most of the days of Genesis are very short periods of time, separated by extremely long periods. Most of the acts of God, recorded in Genesis 1 and 2, can each be identified with changes recorded in geology. This with the scriptural statement "He spake and they stood forth" lends strong support to the interpretation that the days of Genesis are, in part at least, short, intensive acts of creation, separated by long geological periods of time. This makes perfect harmony between science and the Scriptures.

I have to read more on this...Although Stoner is a "circa 1976", he is a bit less controversial than a lot of your other favourite creationists.

Thanks for the website talkorigins. Thoughtprovoking material, probably the best website on the evolution topic out there. I particularly enjoy the page that give tips on debating creationists. It seems I have done everything except draw in the crowds...hehe

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:36 AM by codingsanity

Hannes, I don't suppose that it's crossed your mind that I was talking to two theists and wished to discuss matters on their terms? Additionally, since when can I only argue from positions I personally believe in? When was this rule made exactly? If I understand a persons position (or think I do), am I barred from using that understanding to connect with them? Seems like a damn arbitrary rule. I've read the Bible, I've spoken with very well read Christians, I've read deeply on these matters, yet suddenly, because of my beliefs I'm barred from mentioning the word God. Sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

Nash's quote about supernaturalism is a nice one, but I fail to see where he backs that statement up exactly. He talks about this supernatural reality, but where's the evidence for it? You can't just go around making unsupported assertions, because saying something is so, doesn't just make it so. Anyway, I'm not here to debate Nash, I'm here debating YOU. If we really want a Nash vs. atheist debate I can go find my Dawkins books and quote liberally from them, but I don't think that has an awful lot of satisfaction to it.

You say that Genesis has some scientific support, I'd really like to know what support this would be exactly? From what I know most of the beginning of Genesis is complete rubbish scientifically. This does not mean it doesn't have allegorical meaning, but you discount that, so what I'd like to know what makes you the determiner as to what is allegorical and what is "real"? Even the church fathers, with such luminaries as Augustine couldn't agree on the allegorical vs. real parts of Genesis. Stoner's thesis is an interesting one, but falls massively short in the sequencing. Genesis 1 describes land vegetation coming first of all life, then sea life, then birds, land animals, then man, then woman. Genesis 2 describes man first, then vegetation, then land animals, then birds, no mention of sea life. Neither sequence is scientifically correct. In simplest form it would be sea life, then land vegetation, then land animals, then birds, then man and woman at the same time. I'd like to point out that Genesis 1 places the creation of vegetation before there was a Sun, so that'd have to be quite short duration.

As for evolution causing a lack of belief, it didn't with me. I had no position on evolution one way or the other when I lost my faith. I'd suggest that if Christians howl that those who support evolution are heretics, then it increases the chance that those supporting evolution will become heretics. So, I submit that it is Christians who are driving away the faithful, not evolution tempting them away.

As for my "favourite" evidence for evolution I guess it'd have to be the genetic evidence. Not only has genetics allowed us to observe speciation in the laboratory, but it has also massively confirmed the "web of life" built up by paleontologists. I mean we're not talking some vague correlation here, we're talking a massive confirmation. So here's modern genetics, not even dreamed of in Darwin's time, but he had pointed out that his theory needed some means to transfer hereditary. We have Mendel at about the same time as Darwin building on the concept of genes. Much later, they're incorporated into evolution, but non-one knows what they are. Along come Watson and Crick and discover DNA the basis of genetics, opening it up to close examination. And guess what, it 100% confirms the theory of evolution developed over 100 years before. A stunning and overwhelming confirmation. In fact, such an overwhelming confirmation that evolution denial is rapidly pushed back to the lunatic and religious fringe.

Now keep in mind that you've pressed me for my favourite. I've given you one "evidence" for evolution from thousands upon thousands, and I've given a one-paragraph overview of it. As for evolutions shortcomings, well the most serious would be that it's not terribly useful as a predictive tool. Oh, it is certainly powerfully predictive in the short term, for such things as bacteria resistance, flagging the danger of H5N1 etc. Unfortunately, like meteorology, it's a chaotic system and predictions fail when we cannot forsee the variables. In evolutions case it's a FAR more chaotic system than anything as simple as the weather. Our prediction horizon is short, and even then, only when we deliberately limit the number of variables. You cannot determine future specifics in any great detail, generalities yes, but specifics, not so much. We can determine that blond hair and blue eyes will gradually become "extinct" in the next few hundred years, we can see that we will not suddenly evolve a third arm, since such a morphological change is gigantic, and selection against it would be huge. However, will we lose our underarm hair, for example? If so when? No idea, and evolution could not easily answer that question. There definately is an evolutionary pressure on women to not have it, but with razors nowadays they don't anyway, so is the evolutionary pressure still there? Unlikely, but we simply don't know.

As for your next Nash quote, whilst I disagree entirely with his thesis that there cannot be a common ground between science and religion, I agree with his idea that individuals can still make connections despite their differring world views. As I've tried to point out several times, there's plenty of Christians very comfortable with evolution. Just as an example, I've heard that there's about 480,000 biology and geology scientists in the USA (no idea how current this is), of which about 700 support creationism (a miniscule 0.15%). I've also (in a different place, Time or Newsweek I think) heard it bandied about that about 40% of scientists in the USA describe themselves as Christian, so that would give us 192,000-700= about 191,300 scientists who describe themselves as Christian who do not support creationism and do support evolution. So it could easily be said then that amoungst the people in the best position to know the facts about evolution, more Christians accept evolution than reject it. In fact the evolution deniers make up a mere 0.36% of Christian biologists and geologists, a tiny minority. Now, I admit that just like science, religion is hardly about who has the most people, it's not a popularity contest after all. Nonetheless, just think about that for a bit. If there are so many Christians, such an overwhelming majority, in the relevant sciences who accept evolution and are acquainted, far better than you and I with the facts, why do you suppose they do so? I doubt it's because religion and science are fundamentally incompatible.

Science should stick to it's domain, nature, and religion should stick to the eternal verities. When religion makes claims about nature it's falling within the purview of science and should, like the Catholics in recent times, accept sciences judgements in these areas. Similarly, science can discover the realities of nature, but is in no position to make value judgements from these discoveries. These should be interpreted by civil society as a whole, inclusive of religion. Science cannot rule out a creator God, a Prime Mover if you will, but it can rule out the Genesis creation stories, both of them.

Back to the conversion attempts <sigh>, really? Do we have to? Okay, look you may be concerned with the way things are, but I am concerned with the way things should be. As I've said before, if I die and find myself face to face with a God who has ever consigned anyone to eternal damnation, I will reject that God on the basis that such a God is immoral. There is no middle ground here. Do you believe that eternal torment is a valid punishment for anyone? You personally, do you think such a punishment is moral? If you do, well I'd have to question either your morals or your honesty. If you don't believe it's moral, then you implicitly accept that God is not completely moral, which opens the way for me to reject God on moral grounds.

As for the whole Death thing, please reread my posts above. You see, actually you're the one saying you don't believe in Death. You're the one who thinks you will be alive after it, after all. I don't. I'm looking Death full in the face, and as I said before, the idea of coming to an end of existance terrifies the crap out of me. I agree that I'd call it a doctrine of annihilation (nice phrase), but I'd hardly say I'm propagating it. I don't try to convert people to atheism, and even if I were, I doubt that my beliefs on death would be a major drawing card ;-D You know the really annoying thing, if I'm right I won't even have the satisfaction of knowing it for sure, sucks yeah?

Actually Zeus was a Greek god, not Roman, in addition whilst crucifiction was very rarely used on Roman citizens, it was for such high crimes as treason, of course the elites were never crucified, just the plebs.

BTW, I never asked for a soft gospel, but I'd certainly prefer a moral one. As for my born again status, well, all I'll say is that you have no idea what you're talking about. If the definition of born again is that you can never reject it, well then, surprise surprise you won't meet any "failed" born-agains will you? However, if your definition of born again is a life changing acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and a begging repentance for your sins, a desire to subordinate your will to His then it's possible that you will meet those who have "failed" after the fact, as I did. Faugh! Nice, "you clearly never were"! I can do without the arrogant dismissal please. Anyway I wasn't born again into Catholicism. They don't have such a concept. I left Catholicism to become born again.

As for your limited understanding of the Catholic faith, yeah you're right, that is really touch and go. No, Catholicism does not worship any of those things, they worship the Trinity, one God who is at once the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As for Mary, she is not worshipped, but is venerated and is supplicated for intercession, since, as his mother, she gave Jesus his human part, in a sense the humanity of Christ and the blood he shed on the cross was hers. She cannot redeem, only Jesus can do that, but she can intercede with God on behalf of humanity. I guess it's the ultimate case of complaining to a kids mother about his behaviour ;-D

Finally, can we stick to the plot a bit better yeah? Let's leave off the salvation attempts. I'm sending you my email address so you can keep trying those there. Let's get this discussion back on track. It was about Kent Hovind and his dishonesty about evolution and his dishonesty in his personal life. If anyone else wants to discuss these off-topic things, you can find my email address at http://www.codingsanity.com/about.htm.

P.S. Thanks for reminding me about that debating creationists advice. Must go look it up ;-D

P.P.S. Did you know that once, a very long time ago, I got a <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct99.html">post of the month</a> on talkorigins?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:26 PM by Jaques

Hi Codingsanity

I’m going to be quite brief in the whole Genesis creation saga, because at the end of the day neither creation nor evolution can be proven by how everything comes to live. So I’m going to give you a short version of what was revealed to me about the whole Genesis 1, 2 thing. First, in Genesis 1 we have a quick overview of everything that was created and in which order they where created, that is also the reason why I personally belief in a six day creation, and not millions of years. But that is me. Genesis 2 gives a description of what happened on day 6 in detail. Now this is my perception or theory if you like. If you go and read Gen 2:5 carefully you would realize that God doesn’t say that he made the vegetation, but rather that there was no plants of the field on the earth, and that no grass had come up, meaning that they were made already, but because it haven’t rained yet and that there was no man to do the work in the land., no vegetation had sprouted yet.

Ok, so then God made mist came up from the earth to water all the face of the land. Now bear with me hear. What do we know about seeds? Seeds can stay in the ground for very long, but only when they get water will they start to grow. Ok, then God made man from clay. And He breathed life into man. Then God planted a Garden called Eden and placed man there. Ok, now the next point is very crucial as well. He didn’t create the earth’s population of animals and birds at that stage, because they were already made. He made all the animals of the earth, and all the birds of the sky, and brought them undo Adam so that Adam could name them. This is the interesting part of it and why I came to me conclusion. In Genesis 1, God said let the earth bring forth the animals of the earth, and it was so, and He made them after there kind. Now the word made here is the Hebrew word awsaw that means to do or make in the broadest sense and widest application. In Genesis 2, God formed the animals from the earth. That the word formed is yawtsar which means to mould into a form or squeezing into shape. And God shaped these animals in order for Adam to name them, and that is the names that they have today. This is my humble opinion of everything in Gen 1 and 2, and let’s not argue about that.

Let’s get to the debate. Can you explain a bit more on the whole genetics and DNA issue for me how that is evidence, because I want to make exactly sure what you me before I give you an answer on this.

And I agree with you now. Let’s keep this plot and get it out of our systems. I will in the meantime start giving you a response about the DNA and genetics stuff that I know about, but I would like some clarification if you don’t mind.

Thanks

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Monday, September 11, 2006 7:44 AM by codingsanity

I see where you're going on the Genesis issue, and I've heard a variant of this approach before. Seems quite convoluted and contrived to me, and doesn't solve the issue that the ordering in Genesis 1 is wrong anyway. Before we knew about DNA, the theory of evolution said that something in the organism changed, but no-one knew exactly what it was that was changing. An organism can be described by it's phenotype, which is it's gross physical characateristics such as bone structure, coloration, size, etc. Nowadays, with DNA we can also decribe an organism by it's genotype, which is the arrangement of it's genes. With a greater understanding of genetics we understand better how the various components of evolution fit together. Some form of change was always required in the organism that could be passed down to it's children. Well, we now know that it's change in the genotype, and we know HOW the DNA is mutated, we even know how often mutations tend to occur in a population, allowing us to use DNA as a sort of "clock". This clock correlates well with the fossil record. If it hadn't, then evolution would have been disproved, instead it was massively confirmed. Another point where genetics correlated well with the fossil record was with difference analyses between various species. By doing this analysis we could determine the "genetic distance" between two species, determining how related they are. Now keep in mind that it is only the theory of evolution which requires all life to be descended from a common ancestor. Any evidence that this is not the case would have disproved evolution. Instead, genetics massively supported evolution once again. All life has the same kind of chemistry, there is a huge correlation in the DNA between even the most far-apart creatures. As for creatures like humans and chimpanzees which the fossil record tells us are closely related? Well, we share a staggering 98% of DNA with chimpanzees. Even the differences between us and the great apes tells us something. For example we have 23 chromosomes whilst the great apes have 24. So, at some time in the past a human ancestor went through a chromosomal fusion. Since we know so much about the chromosomes involved we could predict certain things about how the genes on the ape chromosomes correlated with ours. The correlatation existed and could be observed. Not only that, but we could also predict that the endpoints and centre points (telomeres and centromeres) of the fused chromosomes would still be found within the new chromosome, and whaddya know they were. If they hadn't been, it would have been evidence of some tampering with the genetics, like an intelligent designer might do. Instead we have these completely useless fossil telomeres and centromeres in our 2nd chromosome. Like the airway crossing the foodway or the backwards retina we possess, yet another indicatio

Coding Sanity

Search

Tags

News

Blogging

Statistics

Navigation

Archives

Development

Kent Hovind coming to SA?

Comments

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?

# re: Kent Hovind coming to SA?