News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

[color:"brown"]Where Did Cain Find His Wife?[/color]
Author: Bruce Malone

The following is the paraphrased essence of one of the critical junctures in American history. The scene is the 1923 Scopes Monkey Trial, and defense attorney Clarence Darrow had goaded prosecuting attorney Williams Jennings Bryan to take the stand in defense of the Bible.
Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

Mr. Bryan. the defense has one final question,' Where did Cain find a wife?'" "I don't know." " Could you repeat your answer Mr. Bryan? The entire nation is listening via radio broadcast and this is a pretty basic and simple question. Let me rephrase it. If, as the Bible claims, Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, and no other people existed, who did their son Cain find to marry?" "I don't know."

Darrow made Bryan appear foolish, because he did not know scripture well enough to defend the most basic of questions.

This trial marked a turning point in American education, because for the first time the Bible was openly ridiculed. Bryan's inability to answer simple and logical questions was one factor allowing the American educational establishment to accept evolution hook, line, and sinker, while rejecting the historical creation account of the Bible.

Even today most Christians do not know the answer to questions as basic as " Where did Cain find a wife?" The problem with not having reasonable answers to basic questions as basic questions is that it brings all if Christianity into question. Why should people believe in a God whom they cannot see, if believers in that God cannot answer life’s simplest questions about the past and our origin's?

The reason the answer to this question is not immediately apparent is that we have all been trained to think like evolutionists. Evolution was founded on a principle of modern geology called uniformitarianism. This is the belief that small changes over vast periods of time caused the massive geologic (and later Darwin added biological) changes we see around us. In essence, we are trained to believe that everything has essentially operated as we see it today. However, this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man's disobedience that imperfection entered God's creation. Thus mankind, as originally created, would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present in our DNA. In opposition of what evolution teaches, mutations or mistakes on our DNA, do not lead to better and improved humans. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of our parents. Only when both parents have the same mistake in their genes do their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information in our DNA gets more garbled-it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulated in our DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time there would be less mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors leading to children with birth defects. However, there were no moral laws against children intermarrying until after the time of Moses. This was approximately 4,000 years ago and at least 2,000 years after the creation of mankind. Before that time sibling marriage was probably quite common. The Bible states that Adam and Eve had MANY sons and daughters. Jewish tradition suggested that they had 33 sons and 23 daughters! Cain merely married his sister.

The reason we don't realize this obvious answer is because we have been trained to believe things have always been the way they are today. The past, and the present, becomes far more understandable as we view it from a Biblical perspective. This viewpoint acknowledges that the past, has at times, been very different than the present.


Source:
Creation Science Evangelism

I relly really am not sure Russ. I can go with the common view, a sister,,, if you were my pastor I certainly wouldn;t argue otherwise because it is possible... but the thing is...

when Cain gets admonished by God and God sends him away, Cain's first concern is that someone else might kill him. If there weren't any other people, if God only made Adam and Eve, and no others, why would he be concerned about that?

Also, a bit further along in Genesis, Lamech murders. My KJV says he murdered a man. My JPS Tanakh says he killed a man and a boy. Who are these people and why are they strange enough to Lamech to result in confrontation which leads to death?

The bible in any form tells us that it is the geneology/record of Adam. Adam's line. but it doesn't rule out that God did not make any other people. Accounting for different races, races vastly different in appearance from each other becomes another problem if God only created Adam. Adam was the first man is all I know for sure. God created dinosaurs too but there isn't hardly but a mere mentions of a monster or two in the whole book.

Also the living soul thing... God created Adam and made him a living soul... there is some discusion later in the bible about tribes of people, some of whom are mentioned as living souls and others who are not discussed in that manner.

I can go either way really, I don't see that it matters at this point in time, but I can't really set for sure on either option because the bible isn't fully clear about it far as i can tell..

Seriously, if the evolutuonists hadn't used that point they would have found another. Their 'I don't knows' haven't held them back from much.

I do agree about the DNA factor in regard to inheritaed messed up genes being probably quite rare, rather even, non-existent during Cain's time. Whether God created only Adam or others, certainly he did not create any of them imperfect. Imperfection, disease has been acquired through time, environment. Sin. Pardon me for using the word everyone.

The bible cannot mention everything in complete detail, or we'd never finish the book. I believe there is enough in there that we require to believe. I know that God forbad marrying ones close relatives later on, but it was not forbidden in the beginning, as the DNA was without flaw.

There is definitely a natural type of disgust at considering the idea now, which I believe is deeply intrenched in every human being for good reason. Although, again you will always get deviants! But it is for our protection that this instinctive aversion is there.

Variations within every kind is not limited to animals as we can see. Two fully developed adults having all the information in the DNA required to allow for such variation down through the generations, as we see with any other creature.

Also, the life span of these people was according to the bible, was absolutely incredible......which makes sense, God did not create a sick planet (we did through disobedience), so I cannot even imagine how many babies they would have been able to continue producing throughout these long lives. The ones mentioned were the standouts (whether in good or evil).

DNA ADAM AND EVE NOT SO ANCIENT?

a) DNA Eve:
By sequencing mitochondrial DNA in human cells, scientists have found similarities which indicate that all people from earth descend from a single, human female. This mitochondiral DNA is only inherited through the mother's line. Scientists claimed proof that she lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows mitochondrial DNA mutate faster than originally thought. If this new evidence is applied to Mitochondrial Eve' it indicates she would have lived only 6000 - 6500 years ago, which is consistent with the biblical chronology for Eve.

b)DNA ADAM:

Interestingly there is a parallel account with males. Evidence from the Y-chromosome is consistent with all people being descended from a single man. The date is also consistant with a recent date for this 'Y-chromosome Adam' This likewise fits in with the bible chronology for Adam.

So the evidence for a young earth is definitely compelling.

Are we really evolving (improving)? Or are we deteriorating (devolving)?

(DNA DECAY?)

Dr. Ian Macredie is Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research INstitue of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research organisation (CSIRO). He has won some of his nation's leading award for research in his field. Dr. Macreadie (who claims no offical CSIRO endoresement for his views on origins) says: "All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information) that might help a bug to survive - e.g., by not binding to an antibiotics as effectively. But you never see any NEW information arising within a cell. "Evolution would argue for things improving, wheras I see everything falling to pieces. Genes being corrupted, mutations (mistakes as DNA is copied each generation) causing an increasing community burden of inherited diseases. All things were well designed intially.

EVOLUTION OR DEVOLUTION? (Zoologist):

Dr. Walter Veith is holder of the Chair of Zoology at the University of the Western Cape (Republic of South Africa), and a former evolutionist and atheist. Professor Veith became interested in the Bible after finding out about its many explicit prophecies which were fulfilled in amazing detail (unlike the vague prognostications of later seers and soothsayers). He says "In my own field, I realised that natural selection (a fact, incidentally) does not increase the number of variants, it decreases them. I ask, 'How can a mechanism that makes less and less end up making more and more?' To believe in chance mutations as the source of the new information required for evolution requires a lot of faith. It's certainly not something I see in my work as a zoologist."

DOES RADIOMETRIC DATING PROVE AN OLD EARTH?

There are in fact, many dating methods which give upper limits to the age of the earth and universe far less than evolution requires. Some point to an age of a few thousand years at the most. Naturally, evolutionists will automatically, even unconsiously, prefer methods (e.g. most radiometric methods) which allow enough time to make their transformist belief seem possible.

Contrary to popular belief, carbon-dating has nothing to do with millions of years (even with the best analytical equipment today, its upper limit is around 100,000 theoretical years). It is a method which can only date things which still contain organic carbon (unlike most fossil bones, for example). when the method and all its assumptions are understood, and checked against real-world data, it is actually a powerful argument for a young world. Another popular belief is that radiometric methods generally agree with eachother. Perhaps this belief has arisen because of an unconscious 'selection' process; as evolutionist Professor Richard Mauger says:
"In general, dates in the "correct ball park" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published, nor are discrepancies fully explained".

Carbon-dating of wood under lava that was erupted from Rangitoto (an island volcanoe near Auckland, New Zealand) indicates that the eruption was around 200 years ago. The name is said to mean red sky', suggesting that the Maoris, who have been there for 1,000 years at the most, witnessed this event.........

yet...potassium-argon dating of the lava has given ages of up to half a million years! Incidentally, this method is used on occassions to 'date' fossils by their associated lava flows.

Circular reasoning Deceptive!

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils...."And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldredge, 1985). Such circular reasoning is neither logical nor acceptable, let alone scientific!

Evidence of dinosaurs/man living at the sametime, check this link out and scroll down the list:
http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html#dinos&humans

All of the science... very interesting Bex, but who was Cain afraid of being killed by when God banished him from his family?

Hi sosick, some possiblities. It mentions that Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived. It mentions her first and second child (Cain and Abel), but time passed before Cain murdered his brother, so within that time frame, we do not know how many years passed and whether Eve conceived more children within that time period.

Also, the memory of what Cain had done, being the first murder, his hiding may have been the fear of (future?) vengeance from siblings who came later? When you consider either ones that were either alive at the time but younger, or ones that would be born later, the fear of them finding this out and taking revenge on him would obviously hang over his head. Particularly as these people had VERY long lives and "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" type justice was very much the way of things then. And something like this would be considered worthy of severe punishment, so he would have that mark on him all his life.

I'll never be set in stone either way until Jesus tells me himself.

I look and I see... deer for instance.... how many various types of deer... of fish.. of birds... etc..

I look at the human race and I see the same thing. Upon the Ark was Noah, his family his sons their wives, who could have literally carried the genes of several races of people between them, the sons wives.

But there may be more.

I later read in the bible that there were still giants after the flood... David killed Goliath remember? So somehow, even some of them survived that. I know it was God's intention to save Noah, and that he did... but there's no rule that says polar bears didn't survive floating on icebergs just like a few siberian guys or that not a single other boat existed in the world and saved some others too. I'd say that's actually highly unlikely, that no other boats existed. Noah's job was to save himself and his family, this ine of Adam, the animals, that he did.

But I also know God and if he sent a flood to wipe out a lot of people or horror or misery or plague whatever... and if a certain guy that he wasn't crazy about gets the gumption to jump in his boat and ride it out... I'd say it's highly unlikely God would look down and overturn the boat. Likewise... the bible is the record of Adam... of that geneology, it tells us that. But later it we also learn that Nebechednezzar knew God, didn't obey him, but knew him.

I knid of do lean toward other cultures existing though we may not know their stories like we know the bible. It is interesting how people in the middle of nowhere will claim to know Jesus, even before missionaries arrived. There are stories like that.

The bible is the record of Adam. But others not written of in there have also known God. Noah found grace, favor, in the sight of God is all the book says. There may have been others, in some remote corner of the world, hard to say really.

You know, w've got the bible and that's a very good thing. It was Adam's line, through Moses that kept these stories alive way way back even before Moses wrote them. And I am sure God had everything to do with that.

But you'll notice, that God does have relationships with others, the bible does make vague mention of it here and there, the heathens love him etc..

Myslef, i realize that i have been labeled a fundamental Christian by some people here tima and again. but in reality, I am a far cry from a fundamental Christian. the basis of my Christianity is not church, is not even the bible... my basis is a relationship with Jesus. I had only read the bible once, as a child, a childrens bible... prior to being saved... and through many things the Lord led me in total ignorance of His Word, yet he led me...and only later when i started studying the bible was i able to say for certain, yes, this is the God of the Bible.

I wasn't saved at church even, i was saved at home. it was a pretty awesome experience.. I would hear angels singing, I later heard those same hymns in non-denominational and baptist churches... i would be quoting scripture (before I even knew it was scripture)... do you know I literally got down on my knees and said the sinner's prsyer pretty much verbatim like they use at evangelical prayer meetings/revivals... and I had never heard any of that in my life. i had only been to church with my parents as a kid, a catholic chuch, and none of that ever went on there. Tuly, I had never set a foot in any other church and hadn't been to church in almost 20 years when i was saved.

all I know Bex, is he did it to me, he can do it to others.

I actually do think it was my being 'unchurched' that allowed me to be saved in the mighty way I was Bex. i had no expectations, no pre-determined ideas. none.

All I ever had Bex, was a burning dsire for God to bo really exist, somehow someway... and as the years passed, I began to sense him, a friend sometimes, a protector.. mostly Bex, I knew he was kind of angry with me when I was younger and he did let me know that. But I knew him Bex, the force like Sunshine says. But I was never a bible reader. Just a very fallible and vulnerable someone who needed God. I knew him that way for about 10-12 years before I actually got saved by Jesus. I was afraid of him for the most part Bex.

Hi sosick, wow thanks for sharing that and being so open! I agree with so much of what you've said. God is alive, He is not confined to a building or institution and miracles have and DO happen. But is anybody really listening or searching for Him? According to the bible, in the end days, "When the son of Man returns, will He find faith on earth".....I don't think there has ever been a time where that quote has been more fitting!

"As in the days of Noah, so will it be when the son of man returns". "Scoffers will come in the last days,...." etc. If we're not seeing this now, then we're blind.

The prince of this world (Satan) blinds the eyes of them that believe not.

I need to have these quotes in full, but you'll be familiar with them and no doubt can give the entire quotes!

I have included an extra in my earlier post above <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I think you'll like it....check out the link.

Thanks again for sharing your conversion story! That is very powerful.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-geol-column.htm (click on link if you wish to see the video on record of the rocks).

I am sure Linda will bring up the "mining for quotes" comment again, but these are for anybody else's interest, because it should show how fragile the evolution belief actually is, to where they continue to say "well, this is outdated". when faced with quotes like this. To call these things outdated doesn't do the cause any good, considering the foundation for evolution was built on past beliefs.... Linda, if you're going to swing the "out of date" comment at me again, you may as well throw the three founders out too while you're at it - Charles Lyell (Lawyer) - 1830 'The principles of Geology' - (inventor of geologic column). Charles Darwin (theologian)1859 - 'Origin of Species'. James Hutton ('uniformaterialism' - late 1700s). All were clearly unqualified amatuers in the scientific field like yourself Linda and the rest of us!

In fact, truth never becomes out dated or old fashioned. Rather, it would seem the evolutionist relies on design! creating new and improved ways to tell old lies. Truth is independent of age.

Please excuse the long post, it is made up mainly of quotes!

THE RECORD OF THE ROCKS
Does Not Support Evolution But Is Positive Evidence For Creation!
Evolutionist-Converter Quotes from Video Lectures!

Professor Knockout Quotes!

The only official collection of quotes by Dr. Don Patton on the internet.
An important message from Dr. Patton regarding these quotes:
I use most of these quotes as handouts to provide documentation for my lecture series. They were not intended to stand alone as arguments by themselves. However this web site (www.bible.ca) convinced me that they could be useful as a reference tool, especially for those who attend the lectures, and I agreed. I commented at the time that some of the quotes would not make sense without the lecture. A few (two) have charged that a small number of these quotes misrepresent the intent of the context. When the charges were investigated, it was discovered, sure enough, if they had heard them used in the context of the lecture, they would have seen that the use was appropriate. It should be remembered that we are not quoting these individuals to imply that they are creationists. Rather, just the opposite. We are using them as antagonistic witnesses. When such individuals acknowledge facts contrary to their own interest, the credibility of their testimony increases dramatically. We want you to know that these individuals are devout evolutionists. It should also be remembered that the quotes are used as graphics in a lecture. It is easy to defeat the purpose of effective communication by too much detail in the graphic. A longer excerpt might be desirable but ineffective. This practical challenge is one of the reasons documentation is provided in the form of a handout, which allows one to check the entire book or article referenced. If you feel that any of the quotes are used in a "deceptive and misleading" way, please contact the webmaster a formal inquiry will be made of your concerns. We are not afraid to admit error and make changes.

Dr. Don R. Patton

On-line Video
(Real Player needed)
Printable Documentation

1:03 hours
Record of the Rocks
Below is the outline for the video. We recommend you print the outline below before viewing the video. Then watch the video with the hard copy (printed) of the outline in your hand. Enjoy!

THE RECORD OF THE ROCKS

Complete Geologic Column Is Non-Existent, Except In Text Books

NOT REALLY ANYWHERE ! Von Engeln & Caster, "If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles high. ...It is, of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this great pile available at any one place. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado, for example, is only one mile deep." GEOLOGY, p.417

COLUMN IS A CONSTRUCT, DEREK AGER (Past President, British Geological Association) "Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it, anywhere near complete." THE NEW CATASTROPHISM, 1993, p.14

CONCEPTUAL–NOT ACTUAL , "The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geological column." p.779, 1985, Encyclopedia Britannica

COMPLETE COLUMN IS PIECED TOGETHER BY CIRCULAR LOGIC

BUILT BY CORRELATION , L. Don Leet (Harvard) & Sheldon Judson (Princeton), "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for 'together' plus 'relate.'" Physical Geology, p.181

BY THE FOSSILS , Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins Univ., "...most geologic correlations are still based on fossil occurrences. This is true not only because fossils are more common in sedimentary rocks than are radioactive elements, but also because the analysis of fossils usually allows for greater accuracy." EARTH AND LIFE THROUGH TIME, 1986, p.123

NON-RADIOACTIVE CORRELATION , Derek Ager (Past Pres., British Geol. Asso.) "...fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur ...I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.", New Scientist, 11/10/82, p.425

BUILDING THE COLUMN, Putman & Bassett, "A rock that had an early form of an organism was clearly older than rocks containing later forms. Furthermore, all rocks that had the early form, no matter how far apart those rocks were geographically, would have to be the same age. ...fossil successions made it possible to say that the Cambrian rocks are older than the Ordovician rocks. In this way our geologic time table came into being. ...Without the theory of evolution and the interdisciplinary science of paleontology, it could not exist." Geology, p.544

CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION

R. H. Rastal, Cambridge, "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNIA, Vol.X, p.168

Tom Kemp, Oxford, "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67

J. E. O'Rourke, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51

D. B. KITTS, U. of OK., "But the danger of circularity is still present. ..The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation...for almost almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis." Evolution V.28, p.466

David M. Raup, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity. ...Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found." Field Museum Of Natural History Bulletin, Vol.54, Mar.1983, p.21

LIVING FOSSILS UNFOSSILIZED FOR HOW LONG?

NO REAL ANSWER, NILES ELDRIDGE , Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "...there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ....We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils." FOSSILS, 1991, p.101, 108

Neopilina , Niles Eldridge, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "...were thought to have been extinct by the end of the Middle Devonian [385 MYA]. Modern Neopilina species, however, were dredged from the deep oceans in the 1950’s..." FOSSILS, 1991, p.101

Gingko, P. Arduini & G. Teruzzi, "The Gingko biloba is the sole surviving species of a very old group of gymnosperms which died out 100 million years ago." PREHISTORIC ATLAS, 1982, p.78

Coelacanth, Keith S. Thomson, Ex. Officer, Academy of Natural Sciences, "Off the coast of southern Africa, in the winter of 1938, a fishing boat called The Nerine dragged from the Indian Ocean near the Chalumna River a fish thought to be extinct for 70 million years. The fish was a coelacanth, an animal that thrived concurrently with dinosaurs..." LIVING FOSSIL, 1991, From book cover

Horseshoe Crab, Keith S. Thomson, Ex. Officer, Academy of Natural Sciences, The first members of this group appeared some 424 million years ago in the Silurian and look quite like the modern forms. The last fossils became extinct about 50 million years ago." LIVING FOSSIL, 1991, p.72

Dawn Redwood, Keith S. Thomson, Ex. Officer, Academy of Natural Sciences, This species was widespread and reasonably common in the Pliocene of North America... The tree was thought to be extinct worldwide until living specimens were found in central China in 1945." LIVING FOSSIL, 1991, p.72

Graptolites, Sue Rigby, British Geol. Survey, "All paleontologist dream of finding a 'living fossil.' Noel Dilly, it seems has done so... As graptolites are arguably the most important zone fossils of the Lower Palaeozoic (570-360 MYBP), this is far from an esoteric issue." Nature, Vol.363, p.209, 3/18/'93

NO FOSSILS FOR HOW LONG? Sydney, Australia (AP) 12/15/1994 "David Noble was out on a holiday hike when he stepped off the beaten path and into the prehistoric age...standing amid trees thought to have disappeared 150 million years ago. ‘The discovery is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on the earth,’ said Carrick Chambers, Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens."

Falsification Is Theoretically Simple But Practically, Very Difficult

EVOLUTION IS falsifiable , Richard Dawkins , Oxford, "If a single, well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed. Incidentally, this is a sufficient answer to the canard, put about by creationist and their journalistic fellow travelers, that the whole theory of evolution is an 'unfalsifiable' tautology. Ironically, it is also the reason why creationist are so keen on the fake human footprints, which were carved during the depression to fool tourist, in the dinosaur beds of Texas," THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, 1986, p.225

Evolution tested, Niles Eldridge, Amer.Mus., N.H., "We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: to falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms." MONKEY BUSINESS, p.46, 1982

EXPLAINED AWAY , "Leakey first went to Olduvai Gorge in 1931...to solve the mystery of ‘Oldoway Man,’ a skeleton discovered by a German scientist, Hans Reck, in 1913. The mystery was that the skeleton looked to be completely modern, yet according to Reck it had been excavated from deposits more than a million years old. ...‘Almost certainly this is not contemporary with the fossil deposits of the gorge in which it was found, ...probably represents an intrusive burial.’" [Vacillated several times. DRP] Quoted by Roger Lewin, in Bones of Contention, pp.129-130

"HUMAN FOOTPRINTS FOUND ON DINOSAURS' PLATEAU" "...Turkmenian plateau contains more than three thousand footprints! ...But the most mysterious fact is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!" (from Russian) Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1/ 31/1995

Taylor Trail (Removing Overburden Revealed 14 Human Tracks In R-L Sequence With Dino Tracks)

Burdick Track (Sectioned To Falsify Carving Hypothesis)

9" Cat Track – Fossil Finger – Iron Hammer

Russian Footprints – New Mexico Footprints

Malachite Man – Indian Petroglyphs

Inca Burial Stones, Pottery, Fabric, Figurines – Mexican Figurines

Implications

Ernst Mayr, Harvard, "Creationists have stated that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries in time...Were this momentous statement true the names of its discoverers would thunder down the corridors of time as individuals who made one of the most outstanding discoveries of the twentieth century." Gish-Mayr Debate, Evansville, Indiana.

STEVEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins Univ., "There is an infinite variety of ways in which, since 1859, the general concept of evolution might have been demolished. Consider the fossil record--a little known resource in Darwin's day. The unequivocal discovery of a fossil population of horses in Precambrian rocks would disprove evolution. More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory, yet not a single one has come to light. As Darwin recognized, a single geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction." The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p.171

Milne & Schafersman, "Such an occurrence would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism." Journal Of Geological Education, 1983, p.111

NOVA TV Special, God, Darwin And The Dinosaurs, "...dinosaur footprints, side by side with humans. Finding them would counter evidence that humans evolved long after the dinosaurs became extinct and back up...[the] claim that all species, including man, were created at one time."

Revolution To Catastrophism Among Contemporary Geologist

RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC , David Raup, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, "A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe... The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth-century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks. ...one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.21

"the rule," Robert H. Dott, Presidential Address To Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists , "I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception. ...we need to shed those lingering subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking." Geotimes, Nov. 1982, p.16

Cataclysmic burial, John R. Horner, "...there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs [Editorial note: Horner believes they were killed by volcanoes, then later buried by a flood]...there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. ...That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment." DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131

Alternate Explanation: Universal, Cataclysmic, Year-Long Flood

NICHOLAS STENO (Father of Modern Statigraphy), Dott & Batten, "Besides correctly interpreting fossils, Steno drew some even more important conclusions about the strata in which they occur. The result was formulation of most basic principles for analysis of earth history. Steno showed great insight...Steno's axioms provide the ultimate basis of practically all interpretation of earth history, so their importance can hardly be overemphasized." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.24

FOREWARD TO "GENESIS FLOOD ," John C. McCampbell, Professor And Head Of Department Of Geology, University of Southeastern Louisiana "[the authors] have clearly shown that the Bible teaches a unique Creation and subsequent worldwide Deluge, and that the major facts of geology and other sciences can be satisfactorily oriented within this framework. The authors have advanced strong arguments against the validity of uniformitarianism and evolutionism as controlling principles in historical geology, and in favor of what they call Biblical catastrophism. From the writers viewpoint as a professional geologist, these explanations and contentions are difficult to accept. For the present at least, although quite ready to recognize the inadequacies of Lyellian uniformitarianism, I would prefer to hope that some other means of harmonization of religion and geology, which retains the essential structure of modern geology, could be found. Nevertheless, the authors have made a strong case and this volume offers a serious challenge to the uniformitarian position. They have in no way distorted this position, but have opposed it in a courteous, fair and scholarly manner. I would suggest that the skeptical reader will find that the essential differences between Biblical catastrophism and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student." p.xvii

ORDERED SEQUENCE? David M. Raup, U. of Chicago, Chicago Field Mus. Nat. Hist., "The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic." American Scientist, Vol.65, Jan.-Feb. p.57

("stochastic," "...of, pertaining to or arising from chance; involving probability; random..." p.1402, WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY)

Time Relations? Dunbar & Rogers, "...though facies and faunal relations are recorded in the rocks and fossils, and their determination can be reasonable exact and objective, time relations are not so recorded, and their determination remains an ideal, toward which we strive, but which we can only approximate... It follows that correlation, being...essentially an interpretation, is the result of personal judgment, and that it can never be wholly objective,..." PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY, p. 272

SEGREGATED FOSSIL ASSEMBLAGES, Gilluly, Walters, Woodford, "In correlating rock strata by comparison of fossils, it is important to keep in mind the limitations to the spread of organisms imposed by their natural habitats. Many different depositional environments exist...Each environment has its characteristic group of animals and plants, that live contemporaneously...For example, we do not expect to find the bones of antelopes in a coral reef, nor coral in a desert sand dune. ...we would not expect to find the same fossils entombed in all the varied deposits formed." PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, p.101

FOSSIL PROGRESSION? David Raup, Chicago Field Mus., Prof. of Geol., U. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation-evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology." New Scientist, V.90, p.832, 1981

Geologic Implications Of Vapor Canopy

World-Wide Tropical Climate Larger Plants & Animals Catastrophic Polar Change

Previously Lower Sea Level Lower Carbon 14 Level Origin Of Bedded Limestone

Climate of the Past, Dott and Batten, "Devonian land plants are similar the world over, suggesting that climate was rather uniform. Wide distribution of richly fossiliferous middle Paleozoic marine carbonate rocks, and especially the great latitudinal spread of fossil reefs, suggest subtropical conditions....It has long been felt that the average climate of the earth through time has been milder and more homogeneous than it is today. If so the present certainly is not a very good key to the past in terms of climate!" Evolution of the Earth,p.298

DIFFICULT FOR WHOM? Von Engeln & Caster, "The warm, equable climate, characteristic of the entire Cretaceous, prevailed also over most of the world throughout the Jurassic with, possibly, localized exceptions. This universal tropicallity is difficult to explain." GEOLOGY, p.491

Atmospheric Pressure, & Limestone, W.C.Krumbein, L.L.Sloss, Northwestern Univ., "Changes in atmospheric partial pressures of carbon dioxide produce corresponding changes in carbon dioxide solubility. Because of these relations, there is a direct connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the amount of dissolved calcium ion in sea water. ...If the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater decreases, some bicarbonate ions change to carbonate, thereby causing precipitation of calcium carbonate." STRATIGRAPHY and Sedimentation, p.223

Ancient CO2 Pressure, Clayton J. Yapp & Harold Peths, Dept. Geology, Univ. of New Mexico, "...atmospheric Pco2 [CO2 pressure] was ~16 times higher than today." Ancient Atmospheric CO2 Pressure Inferred from Natural Gothites, Nature, Jan.23, 1992, p.312

Well, I appreciate your 'quote mining' Bex, so if anyone else has a problem with it that's their business. people will complain about anything you know.

YES the 'Evidence of dinosaurs/man living at the sametime' looks marvelous, I just looked at it briefly but I will give it a good read later.

Personally Bex, I find your quotes and links very inspiring. And Russ's. I watch em all, I read em all. I just let them play while I'm doing other stuff, they are mostly verbal presentations so i just listen. I am no always in agreement with everything but I enjoy a respectful intelligent opposing opinion. I actually do have some questions about Hovind's work. Not major, but they exist. I don;t see any real reason to stretch when it's ok to say... we really don't know... but there is so much evidence about people encountering dinosaurs, the old stories, i love those, I don't think they are imagined. Perhaps embellished a bit here and there, but not imagined. I was thinking to do a children's book series or something, that would be neat the world needs it... it would be so easy I might start that this month I think and present it to a publisher in the spring. I think I can get to it... about people living with dinosaurs not the evo theories of zillions of years ago. Just storybooks for kids to add a different perspective and support biblical timelines. i see plenty of evidence suggesting that there is quite a bit of truth to that. Dinosauars are real fun to draw and kids love that stuff. my daughter was a dino expert at age 6. She actually knows more about this stuff than i do.

There will always be scoffers. Let them scoff. doesn't really affect my life. We live in the boonies for a reason anyway. There's no sign out front that says 'STAY AWAY, LEAVE US ALONE, WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!' but there should be. heh. Maybe I can rent a stegasauras or something.

I have a really old version bible translation of hebrew or aramaic on disk somewhere. haven't read it in years but there is quite a bit of insight in there that gets whitewashed out in the Greek to English translations. I think I still have it. Those tyoes of bibles are kind of expensive but a good investment if you like to study the word in depth. Most of them come with a concordance of various word meanings/relations. My experience is actually quite biblical.

Needless to say I suffered enough biblical sin related things along the way to make me scoff at scoffers. Word for word I suffered them. I highly recommend against eating pork and shellfish. Want to see some intestinal parasites?

Just a few points here. I was ignoring this thread because I have no interest in Biblical quibbles, but I can see now that people have been posting anti-evolution things here while I've been refuting them elsewhere.

There are so many scientific errors here that I don't know where to begin. Remember the reasons I gave for not refuting entire websites and videos; it takes hours, and only seconds for someone to post a link. You guys are cutting and pasting stuff from creationist sites and a lot of it is wrong but I don't have days to refute every point.

Since I've been asking people to back up their comments about absolute dating methods, I'll start with those when I get a chance. I'll also talk about mitochondrial Adam and Eve because Bex has posted some initial correct facts about them and then some comments which have either been misinterpreted from the data, or completely made up. Guess I'll move on from there as I get the time.

Also, a point about quote mining. I hope I've shown enough about this to prove that it is a dishonest process. These quotes are taken out of context, cherry-picked (e.g. a sentence extracted here and there from a whole paragraph), or are outdated -- in the sense that they are no longer relevant to current scientific thinking. An example I gave of this was Darwin saying there was a lack of evidence 150 years ago. There is a lot more evidence now.

People who quote-mine are deliberately trying to mislead people about what scientists are saying. If you endorse this process then I think you need to ask yourself why you also want to engage in the dishonest process of misrepresenting people's views. Is your desire to promote creationism so all-consuming that you feel you need to put together these lies in order to do it? And is that your brand of Christianity? Does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" have a qualifier attached -- "unless you're trying to get people to become creationists"?

Actually Linda, no on is quibbling here if you take a better look. We're sharing info.

If you want to start your quibbling nonsense, I for one, will completely ignore you. Life was ok before you Linda, it'll continue to be ok without you. Sorry you disagree with our discussions. Your arguing is obnoxious.

A little respect for others, even if you disagree with them, goes a long way Linda.

If you give it a break, someone else might get an opportunity or be inspired to join in. But thats highly unlikely once you start your same old stuff.

there's no need to redundantly reirate the same points over and over again. Obviously some people disagree with you. You will have to learn to simply accept that.

We've already heard it 100 dozen times it Linda, thanks. Have a nice day.

Mitochondrial Eve was not the only female alive at the time. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


Y-chromosomal Adam was again not the only man alive in his time. Also, he was not contemporary with mitochondrial Eve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Adam


Finally, referring to mutation rates of mitochondrial DNA. Again no citation for this, but it appears to be based on the work of Parsons et al. in 1997.

from TalkOrigins http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

CHECK THE FACTS before you regurgipost guys. If I can do it, you can.

SoSick, the "science" here is riddled with inaccuracies. Maybe the three of you are OK with putting blinders on in the face of it but I'm not. Unless you want to post a disclaimer first that all claims in this thread are fictitious and facts have been changed to protect the believers.

I'm not standing by while people are deriding scientists and their life's work, and scientific facts. You simply cannot claim that most of this is true because it isn't. Theological discussions, no problem, I'm not interested. But claiming science fiction as science fact is different.

Just a point of correction I think should be addressed...

The Biblical commandment does NOT say "thou shalt not lie" (unless you are reading a poorly-translated version).

The accurate translation of the original commandment reads Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

This is an entirely different concept.

For example, if you read in the Old Testament about David, he lied to the Philistines pretending to be crazy in order to hide out from those who were seeking to kill him. He lied, yet the Lord God called him a man after His own heart.

Here's another example...if a gunman asked where your husband and children were because he/she wanted to kill them, you would not be breaking any commandments by lying about their whereabouts.

I hope this helps clarify a widely-held and often-repeated misbelief about this particular Biblical commandment. (I think it's important to be as accurate as possible about all the information that's being posted on this thread, whether Biblical, scientific, etc.)

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/amen.gif" alt="" />

That's exactly right Laura.

It is ok to deceive decievers, especially when their intentions toward others are not good. The hebrews even stole the egyptians jewlery to ensure they were angry enough to follow them. what better way to ensnare a rich man but to take his gold? Pharoah lost his entire army in an afternoon that way.

In essence, deceiving a deceiver nullifes the event since the event is deceitful to begin with.

God's word says that even God with help those who love deception by sending them plenty of it.

Thanks, have a nice day.

Russ, I loved your post. At my house we were just having a fun discussion about this very thing not too long ago.

To Bex and SoSick, I really enjoyed reading your exchange of posts today and I wanted to tell you that.

Linda, I didn't really perceive any biblical quibbling here. I wonder whether you read the open and honest exchanges on this thread before you interjected yourself.

I've been reading some of the threads in this section for a while. I've elected not to add any of my own comments mainly because I'm feeling so rotten right now.

But I would like to just share this: watching and reading the debates going on in this section of the website has solidified my faith in God. And I must admit, it's a wonderful feeling. Despite being a faithful soul (or feeling as though I was), it's been difficult to keep one's faith bolstered and centered on God during a time when the misery of chronic illness attempts to eat at one's very core.

The "quote mining," and "regurgiposting," has been enjoyable. And Linda, your posts have especially been helpful to me in strengthening my faith in God and Jesus Christ. While I presume that hasn't been your intention, it's been helpful to see someone try to argue "against," God. So, I thank you for that.

I hope it's ok that I interjected myself here and shared a personal view.

Anyway, thanks to you all.

Warm Hugs,
SomedaySoon (Sharon)

Thanks, Sharon. it is fun isn't it?

You should join in more often, the more the merrier. Everyone has some special insight God has given them.

I am real glad it's not me arguing against God though, that is foooor suuure. I'm happier as a rook than a pawn.

SoSick,

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with everything you said in response to my post.

Let me first point out that my above post was directed at correcting the misquoting of the 9th commandment. Nothing more, nothing less.

Secondly, the Hebrews did not "steal" the Egyptians' jewelry. The Bible says:



I think it's extremely important to be accurate when referring to the Bible and/or Biblical concepts; otherwise, those who are reading and listening may get misinformation or come to the wrong conclusions.

The Lord God blessed the children of Israel by giving them favor with the Egyptians. I see no indication that there was any deceipt or stealing taking place.

Or perhaps you could look at it this way...had I been in the Egyptians' shoes, I would have gladly given the children of Israel anything they wanted to get them to leave my country.

Lying to a gunman to save your life or the life of your family is an extreme example, but one that I think makes the point that the Lord God did not command us to never lie. However, I'm not so sure I agree that "deceiving a deceiver nullifies the event." I'll have to think about that and search the scriptures.

Regarding your last point, I do think I remember reading (perhaps in Revelation?) a passage similar to what you are saying about God sending deception, but I'd have to look it up to read the full context before I can say with certainty that I agree.

I mean no offense, but I'm just trying to be accurate. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reading.gif" alt="" />

Yes the bible does say borrow. But Linda quoted that as 'steal' in a previous thread. perhaps the misunderstanding.

mmm. I don't know Laura, God asked pharoah to let his people go how many times, had to send plagues of all sorts to convince him. The egyptians were actually treating the hebrews very badly. They were brick makers the hebrews and the were treated pretty rough in that respect, often cheated and made to work extremely hard... the Egyptians would kill their male children, hardly a blessing. they were slaves in Egypt, no doubt about it, and treated as such.

You would have to read quite a bit of the bible, it says that he will send them strong deception even, to be perfectly accurate, in more than one place... in several places to be sure, it says it in various different ways.

try Isaiah. Parts of the NT too.

Thanks, SoSick. I'm afraid that a fair amount of my brain cells have been hijacked recently by the Lyme Disease. I couldn't even begin to keep up with you, Bex, Russ, Laura, Linda, Elvis and Pwcca on these discussions. I feel as though I have a massive void between my ears at the moment. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />

But, I am enjoying everyone's posts.

Hugs,
SomedaySoon (Sharon)

Radiometric Dating.

None of these methods point to a young earth.

Radiometric dating is based on the known decay rates of certain isotopes. The decay rates are known, observed facts. Why should these differ from any other methods in “allowing enough time”? You look at the amounts of parent and daughter elements and compare them with the known decay rates, to be very very basic. Explain how this is so erroneous as to consistently produce dates which are millions of years too old?

Your source is actually correct in stating that carbon dating has nothing to do with millions of years. It is used for specimens that are 40,000 years old or younger. Scientists understand this and they use other methods for older specimens.

Andrew MacRae writes in “Radiometric Dating and the Geological Timescale: Ciricular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?” which you can read here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html



Your source claims that erroneous dates are not published, which is incorrect. It is far from clear that the majority of discordant dates go unpublished - and if they do it will likely be because they are the result of uninteresting errors. If the errors indicate a genuine problem then they will usually be published for that reason.To establish that radiometric dating is imprecise you need to take into account both the proportion of discordant results and the nature of the errors. For instance if a result is discordant because it used low-quality material, it cannot be relied on to indicate that radiometric dating is inaccurate when better quality material is available.
Your source makes unsupported assertions. Where is the proof that radiometric dating is wildly inaccurate and that scientists are hiding significant amounts of discordant dates?


Argon exists in the atmosphere and newly formed lava will therefore contain some. Using potassium-argon dating on lava less than a few million years old will give false results. This problem was first reported some 50 years ago: it's a limitation of potassium-argon dating that has been known about for a long time. Also, the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only a few years old. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice. Your source has essentially demonstrated that they know little about radiometric dating methods.

Care to try again?

Finally, your quote mine from Eldredge. In the work he was doing there was often no volcanic layer of rock to help date the fossils since he was working on isolated outcrops, road cuts, etc. That’s what he was talking about here. The full context:



Quote mining is a dishonest practice. It misrepresents the scientists’ ideas.

I interjected when I saw a lot of pseudoscience being posted. That is my concern here.


That's fine. If you believe it is an act of "faith" to believe inaccuracies even when they've been pointed out to you, then be my guest.

I changed it to "bear false witness" a while ago.

So you don't think this means "you should not lie."

SoSick says it's OK to lie to people you think are your moral inferiors, judging from her comments. She thinks I'm a liar and so it's OK to present creationist lies to me, and presumably everyone else who accepts evolution as fact.

The problem is, people like me laugh when we see quote mines and science that we know is wrong. The people who are going to accept this stuff as fact are the ones who are already invested in believing it in the first place, and they will use it to "strengthen" their faith. How do you justify presenting these lies to them?

Actually, I have never lied to you Linda, i think you misunderstandi some things. I have no reason to lie to you. Have a nice day.


Laura delusion is a more proper word, sorry about that, then derision for searchable bible text. but the meaning is the same.

try these for instance:

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Psalms 2:1-12
1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Psalms 59:8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

Hosea 7:15 Though I have bound and strengthened their arms, yet do they imagine mischief against me. 16 They return, but not to the most High: they are like a deceitful bow: their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue: this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt.

The bible is full of these, God sending delusion, derision, and deception to those who hate him and truth. Even he himself hardened Pharoahs heart against the Hebrews to bring about a certain situation..

Actually, Linda, I think you misread what I wrote. Or perhaps I wasn't clear. You opined that SoSick and Bex were "quote mining" and "regurgiposting." I was just offering that I was enjoying SoSick's and Bex's "quote mining" and "regurgiposting" comments. It's that simple -- I'm enjoying reading the posts.

I also stated that it has been your posts in particular, Linda, that have strengthened my faith in God.

It was as simple as that. Nothing in my post needs to be dissected, recategorized, substantiated, unsubstantiated, or quashed by an offensive or defensive comment by anyone here. Of course, if one should want to do so, all I can say is "have at it."

I was merely sharing my personal feelings and wanted to thank everyone for the interesting exchange. And I sincerely meant Everyone.

Sharon

oh yeah Sharon. we know. it's difficult don't feel bad. It's not you.

Here is more Laura, in a different sense, of God adversely affecting those who love lies:

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

well I have to go. work to do. I am not a real good multi-tasker.

Thanks for the bible lesson. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Next time I will remember the word delusion.

I'm referring to the practice particularly of quote mining when it should be clear that it is a deliberate misrepresentation of scientists' views. It amounts to lying about what they have said. You did endorse this SoSick. I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would want to do this -- presumably creationists are secure enough that their beliefs are right that they have no need to try to distort what their opponents are saying? And how is making a strawman of your opponent's position an honest way of presenting yours?

whoop whoop one more sorry:

this one important...

Matthew 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. 15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; 16 And charged them that they should not make him known.

... because that's how the pharisees condemned Jesus, by the testimonies of those who he had healed, on sabbath days a good few, all after Jesus had requested of them that they not tell anyone who healed them. But instead, they were honest when asked.

The Lord actually told me once in the past, not to bother with a certain group of people, not to tell them about him. I didn't listen either. I got in some trouble. He still tells me from time to time.

no, it wasn't you.

ok have a nice day again.

Info on mutations for Russ.

The vast majority of mutations are neutral. They neither confer harm nor benefit. There is no evidence that humans, or any other species, are accumulating harmful genetic “mistakes” over time. See references at the end of this post for information about the different kinds of mutations that occur, how they occur, and the effects on the organism.

The human mutations we know most about are detrimental because medical scientists preferentially study illnesses that cause significant morbidity and mortality. Consider the theoretical possibility that a beneficial mutation has occurred in a particular human gene; even if this mutation were identified by a comparison of the mutated gene in a child versus the unmutated version of the same gene in both parents, there is no way that this mutation could ever be recognized as beneficial. If the mutation increased intelligence, strength, longevity or specific disease resistance, this would never be apparent without long-term breeding experiments that could obviously never be done on humans. Therefore, since such beneficial mutations in humans could never be recognized in humans, our ignorance of examples cannot be taken as evidence that they don't exist. However, the experiments necessary to demonstrate a beneficial mutation can be done with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance. In this case origin of the population from a single bacterium allows comparisons of the mutated genes with the corresponding genes from the original bacterium, verifying that the variant sequences were not present before the culture with antibiotics and therefore arose as beneficial mutations.

Some identified beneficial mutations in humans:

Sickle cell resistance to malaria: In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

Lactose tolerance: This is not universal; it is something that originated in cultures that kept cattle and goats. In these cultures lactose tolerance had a strong selective value. In the modern world there is a strong correlation between lactose tolerance and having ancestors who lived in cultures that exploited milk as a food.

Resistance to atherosclerosis (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567): Atherosclerosis is principally a disease of the modern age, one produced by modern diets and modern life-styles. There is a community in Italy near Milan whose residents don't get atherosclerosis because of a fortunate mutation in one of their forebearers. This mutation is particularly interesting because the person who had the original mutation has been identified.

Note that this is a mutation that is favorable in modern times because (a) people live longer and (b) people have diets and life-styles that are not like those of our ancestors. In prehistoric times this would not have been a favorable mutation. Even today we cannot be certain that this mutation is reproductively favorable, i.e., that people with this mutation will have more than the average number of descendents. It is clear, however, that the mutation is personally advantageous to the individuals having it.

Immunity to HIV: The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4; another is CCR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. These individuals are resistant to HIV and AIDS.

You can read more about genes and mutations in these articles:

Are Mutations Harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

right, tell that to my brother and sister who both have a genetic birth defect.

Hi Everybody
Just thought I would join in a bit. Nothing to quote mine or regurgipost LOL. I have been folowing these threads for a long time and I have to say the same as Sharon. I have really enjoyed all of the posts and I thought at first Linda that you were searching for God but now I think you are just a lost little sheep. All of the evolutionist posts have only made my faith stronger in Jesus.
I have always had faith in Jesus and have had him lead me out of a many a trial and tribulation in my lifetime. I know without a shadow of a doubt that he exists and I feel it deep in my heart. If it wasn't for my faith in God I would have never found out why I was sick. He led me to that conclusion and to this website for help.
For me it is easy to see how we have all been so conditioned to believe in evolution, the schools, science etc... But I have also seen mercury being put in peoples mouths for many years and was that right? I do not believe that it was right because we are all sick from it. Did they even consider how toxic that was, even after they found out about the mad hatter incident in the 1800's. Where were the scientists then? What about the vaccines, where are the scientist on that one? I do believe that there are scientist out there that are on the up and up but I can't see all of them stating the truth. I did not and have not seen the truth yet on how poison the amalgams are to every human on earth. Knowing what we know about the amalgams and not being presented with the truth about it, I have strong thoughts of the scientific data they are giving us is or can be somewhat wrong too!!!
Rachel

I'm sorry to hear that SoSick, but what has that got to do with what I said? I wasn't denying that harmful mutations occur. Clearly they do. But most mutations are neutral, some are positive, and harmful mutations do not accumulate to the point where the species is genetically compromised. Have a look at the links I posted if you want further details.

I doubt if what I'm going to say is going to make any difference, but here's my two cents Rachel. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All of us here know that mercury is harmful, that it shouldn't be put in our mouths, and that a lot of people are lying about it. But that doesn't mean that the whole of science is one giant conspiracy and that all scientists are liars.

People also are devoutly Christian, believe in Jesus, and accept evolution. 11,000 Christian leaders in the US have signed a petition saying that Christianity and evolution can happily co-exist.

What is it they say? "The truth shall set you free."

Linda, I don't think you quite understand the point Russ is making concerning genetic defects relative to close related bloodlines. Certain bloodlines carry predispositions to certain birth defects, hemophilia for example.

When children are born of incest (that is not the case in my family, just close bloodlines i guess, not even cousins of any degree, just a perchance match on that) they usually look weird, they are often identifiable just by appearance. they are also often riddled with diseaes of various sorts because of (often several) matching genetically erred genes from both parents.

It has very little at all to do with overall mutations in the general population as a whole as you suggest. Incest is another matter altogether, which does not enable a route for the child to escape a genetic defect if one or more are present.

First of all Linda, one impression you continue to give. Is that you have the patent on science, life, truth and I have to ask, do you have a degree in science? If so, do you have solid evidence to support yours/their claims? Rather than quoting them because it's the quotes that please you and getting yourself into a knot when you find quotes that make you uncomfortable. You are a very judgemental person, that is a big NO NO for any teacher! I am sad for your pupils if yu behave towards them in this manner. If they don't happen to agree with you, or give their own interpretation and opinion, heaven help them who are under your dubious pedigogical "care".

Also, bearing false witness? The quotes given came from these scientists, how one takes them is their business. Are you annoyed because they've been gathered up and posted up?

You have also described Kent Hovind as an "idiot", who has taught science for 15 years, he has a doctorate in education, until he got SICK of transmitting evolution lies! which he has now been exposing in 700 lectures, debates, per anum for the last 15 years, over a million video tapes have been distributed by public demand of which my father (who has a master of arts degree in English) is distributing over 500 copies of his classic presentation "Lies in the Textbooks".

You of all people, will certainly not be stopping the truth from getting out. And these truths are setting huge numbers of people free from the DUMB DOWN tyranny of evolution.

Like it or lump it, it's happening and using emotional responses like "bearing false witness" in yet more ways to hopefully get people on the back foot doesn't appear to be working. Certainly the God of creation who made this commandment in the first place is hardly going to be wounded by people giving HIS side to the argument!

Ok, I'll take the bait. Who/Whom were the so-called 11,000 Christian leaders petitioning? Do you have a source that you can give me? Were they trying to change dogma from certain Christian denominations or what? What results were they trying to achieve by a petition?

In my old age, after having been around the block a few times, I prefer to put my faith in God, not in people. To the extent that God wants me to rely on people (or science for that matter) during my time here on earth, I have to trust that He'll give me the discernment to do so. Most importantly, that I'll have the ear to hear Him.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with eternity than my short time here on earth. Science has not offered me salvation. Money has not offered me salvation. Mankind has not offered me salvation. Medicine has not offered me salvation. God has. And I accepted His invitation a long time ago. And I will not be inclined to accept another person's encouragement to denounce or marginalize God.

Linda, you seem to care a great deal about your theories of evolution. I'm wondering if you could explain why they mean so much to you. I'm really very curious to know.

And just one more question, if I may .... could someone not accuse your posts as quote mining Linda? And even regurgiposting for that matter? I can't help but feel that there is a fair amount of transference going on in some of your comments. I think we need to try and be fair and open about this.

Sharon

This is what happens with incest SoSick. It's why incest isn't a good idea in higher-order species that require a larger gene pool, and why species are generally averse to it. Russ' post seems to be trying to say that no diseases existed when people were "created" and so sisters and brothers could marry each other -- it's a creationist attempt at explaining how a genetic bottleneck of 2 people could recover without the damage to the gene pool that incest creates. He knows these problems exist and saying that they didn't exist in the beginning is a way around them. He also keeps claiming that all mutations are harmful and that junk DNA causes a species to degenerate, which is the main point I was refuting.

Be very careful of this kind of stuff folks. The evolutionist attempts to appeal to the Christian by saying "both can exist"....they know full well, that the indoctrination of evolution has actually destroyed MANY a Christian's faith around the world. In fact, here in New Zealand, the evolution faith has been nothing short of devastating. 95% of kids now leave the church and ditch their faith after hearing about evolution in highschool. Not even having had the chance to hear the creation side.

Though some people decide to compromise and keep both onboard, for many it doesn't quite work that way. Thankfully, more and more Christians are hearing the creation side to the arguments and are having their faith restored and this is slowly beginning to spread.

Had evolution REALLY had the truth, these arguments wouldn't even be erupting in the first place because the truth would have overwhelming solid evidence. Basically it would not even be possible! It would be like denying there is a sun in the sky.

There have been plenty of evolutionary scientists who have become creationists too, so perhaps the truth has set them free! Certainly through their studies, they continued to see undeniable design! Not an easy transition, considering it can take years to accept it when you have a mindset towards evolution. It took Dr Gary Parker 3 years to make the transition. He had been teaching evolution to kids for many years. This is no an isolated case.

The "truth" Linda speaks of that will "set you free", is simply a theory, and their interpretation of what took place in the beginning, even though they were not there, is down to faith. They appeal greatly to the ego of the wanna be academics, and stroke the antigod philosophy egos of their peers and rely heavily on the ignorance of the ordinary layperson.

By using technical terms, making it all "sound" scientific and logical, people get overwhelmed and starry eyed and are almost intimidated to question it. Linda is a little caught up in her own academic verbosity, including those of her superiors.

We NEED other highly intelligent scientists who have already been down the road of evolution, know all the tricks played, the denials, exaggerations, cover ups, great use of scientific terminology to be able to expose it all for what it REALLY is. Without them, we really are sitting ducks. Just watch a nature programme and how they speak of evolution as though it really happened, without ANY photographic evidence to support it. The only reality you see is the present or recorded past, the rest is the evolution story tale and sadly many people are falling for it.

Do I have a degree in science? No. No one needs one in order to understand basic scientific principles. I have been giving links for people to read if they want to, if they don't understand a point I'm making or if they want to check the evidence out for themselves. I'm asked on other sites where I talk about alt med, if I am a doctor. They want me to say I'm not, and shut up. But we know that alt med trumps the knowledge of your average GP any day. All you have to do is educate yourself.

It's interesting to hear these personal comments from creationists about what an awful teacher I must be. I guess that must be me from the start because I'm teaching my 4-year-old girl about evolution. Shock horror. By the way, the reality is more boring than that. I don't stand in front of the class spouting any kind of dogma at them. I mostly help them learn how to pass their English exams. I had a very good report at the end of my return-to-teaching course from the head of department so I can't be that bad.

Look Bex, you see how the quote mined quotes are being used. You can see that they are being taken out of context. They are misrepresenting what the scientists are saying. If they were simply repeating what the scientists said, and putting them in the proper context, then there's no reason why I would be complaining. But they're not, isn't it obvious? Haven't I explained enough examples to show this or do I need to address still more?

Hovind. He says on his "Dr. Dino" website that he graduated from Midwestern Baptist College in Michigan in education and Bible and received his master´s and doctoral degrees in education from Patriot University, "a small Christian University in Colorado." (http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc.htm#Q: Where did you get your degree?). In Part One of his videotape seminar, he boasts a "PhD in education." Let's have a closer look at these credentials.

MBC offers little science instruction, and it is saturated with religious doctrine; the objective of the MBC Department of Education is to train students "for teaching in Christian schools" (http://www.midwesternbaptist.edu/school/courseeducation.htm. The Division of Science offers only 4 undergraduate courses (one is "Creation Science"), all slanted toward Biblical literalism (http://www.midwesternbaptist.edu/school/coursescience.htm. The objective of the sole science education course offered by the MBC Department. of Education is to learn "to present to an elementary class the universe which God has marvelously created" (http://www.midwesternbaptist.edu/school/courseeducation.htm). Hovind´s education at MBC would never qualify him to teach in any school with a legitimate science curriculum.

Hovind´s credentials from Patriot University are even less substantial. PU was formerly in Colorado Springs CO, but is now in Alamos CO, in a house near the College Heights Baptist Church The street address ["External Studies Department Bulletin," Fall 1997] is the residential address of PU´s Executive Director of External Studies, Dr Lonnie Skinner (http://www.anywho.com.) The Bulletin indicates how a university could simply relocate to another town: There is no faculty, and credit is offered for "life experience and ministry evaluation". The courses, workbooks, audiotapes, and videotapes can be completed in 2-4 weeks. Tuition is a voluntary, monthly "freewill offering". The only graduate science course is "SC 701 - Biblical Basis of Modern Science". The DMin is offered in Biblical Studies, Pastoral Studies, Evangelism and Missions, Christian Education, and Christian Counseling.

Patriot is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which Steve Levicoff in Name It and Frame It classifies as an "accrediting mill" (Levicoff, Chapter 12). The US Dept of Education does not recognize AAATI as an accrediting agency (US Dept of Education, September 1998, p 28). Hovind´s PhD clearly does not meet even minimally respectable academic standards.

You can also find out about his "dissertation" here http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read." It was 101 pages in length, has no title, is full of spelling errors, contains no original research, is highly repetitious, and completely lacks references.

How honest is this from someone who claims to have been a high school physics teacher with a PhD?

The petition is called The Clergy Letter. You can read about it here http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

This is the content:


11,096 signatures so far.

Linda, Oh, I see, it's a petition to use in the public school setting. Or at least that's how it all began according to the website. Well, thanks for the reference. I'm not that impressed by what alot of Clergy do either. That goes back to my previous post, "I prefer to place my faith in God, not people." And as far as unimpressive Clergy people go -- I could share some real doozies! I won't even get myself started one of the Vicars who was at my childhood church for awhile. He carried on with any dress in the congregation that tempted him. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/preach.gif" alt="" />

And so, I will stay focused on the Lord and His word.

Tell me, how is your usage of this so-called petition not considered "regurgiposting?"

I checked the list of 'signees'.

predominantly, the churches are:

United Methodist
Episcopal
United Church of Christ
Lutheran

All of those churches have had some sort of schism over the past several years because of liberal teachings, some of them endorse marrying homosexuals. A lot of poeple have left those churchs in recent years for those reasons exactly, and they are not considered Christian churches anymore in the eyes of many of their previous congregations as a result.

Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian church. I have no idea whatsoever what the odd names like Metanexus Institute represent.

Just the same old junk teachings from the same old bunch Sharon. They have to promote evolution in ordr to promote other things like same sex marriage. They had to separate. The God did not make Adam and Steve joke of several years ago was rather deafening and the congregations were up in arms..

who would expect less?

I spent a couple sundays checking out a United Methodist church about 12 years ago. I must say, and am not exaggerating, that I have never felt a spirit of coldness in any other church as i did in that one. never went back. Stone cold.

those, btw, are the people God told me not to bother with all those years ago. they do not believe in God or the he holy spirit as real presence in our lives. there you have it. trust me, i tested it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dancefiction.gif" alt="" />

It should be called the godiswhateveryouwanthomoclergy letter.

The Lutheran church especially is in serious financial trouble. I wonder why?

hmm. i'll need to remember to quote you next time you ask me that. Why do you ask people that question if you truly believe that?



It probably has less to do with the theory of evolution than you realize. It's probably more relative to the judgemental, aggressive and arrogant unrelenting derogatory insistence on changing a person's beliefs to your own, no matter what they be.


Why is Hovind's Christian education background so funny? It's surely quite a bit more than you've got. You were educated in Nebraska for pete's sake. At a college one step above a community college. If I were you, I would neither take jabs at others or boast. Either will land you in a stew.



I strongly disagree. the quotes are not out of context . i do contend that the context you read them with is out of the nrorm Linda, and biased towrd your own presumtions of context, wahtevr those are. Within those writings from which the quotes are taken are more corroborating statements to the same effect with which Bex intends them. Saying repeatedly that they are out of conext is dishonest, especially when the opposite has already been pointed out to you.

It's true, you really should not post quotes Linda, if other people posting quotes is a problem for you. did I recall you xcalling something unfair?


Was your college accredited Linda? Your high school? Many midwestern schools are not accredited either.

More honest than an english teacher with next to zero teaching experience claiming to have one.

It's coming. Quantum mechanics is a bit out of the league of most schoolteachers but it's been causing quite an uproar in the past decade or two in science circles concerning intelligent design.

it won't be ignored forever. can't. too important to the overall future of science. Right now lot of people depend on things likke the evolution scien since they were trained with it to make a living. change takes time, they need to die off a bit.

The theory of evolution really is dinosaur science, like old hat.

what we really need are some cool pretty dino and creation mix story books for kids. If you want to change the world, you have to start with the children.

I have to go make my christmas card site so i'll see ya'll later or whenever. Love your quotes Bex. Nice to See you hanging in there Sharon, excercise the dull metal brain. looks good to me. I think your soul is in order, who cares about your brain anyway? You have a new one waiting on a new earth just as God promised. have no doubt. it's the heart that matters.

It would be nice if the arguing ceased.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/ookcbaofoq.gif">

That's little carmen elektra. about 9 yrs ago anyway. She has her bible stories in order.

She puts the pieces together herself.

My my my, we have been busy Linda. It is very lucky that there are creation scientists who used to be evolutionists isn't it? When one considers how difficult life is made for any scientist unless he complies with the evolutionary belief, it's no wonder Kent Hovind is hated! But the worst enemies for the evolutionists are the ex-evolutionists and the most potent arrow to their "cause". They are the ones who are most lethal in my book. Kent is very outspoken and I don't doubt he isn't perfect either, but he's still gutsy for stepping up to the plate and willing to debate any of these guys anytime, anywhere! If only they would accept the offer and take him up on it!

I have nothing but praise for the Christian people like Kent Hovind however, who may not have the greatest qualifications, but I think he has a little more than yourself Linda <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> if it's good enough for you as an english teacher? Then it's good enough for Kent. This ..apparent "underachiever" or "idiot" as you like to arrogantly refer to him, is a dread to any evolutionist when it comes to a one on one debate! They prefer instead to mostly - turn him down, ignore his invitation and hide behind the comfort of a website to tear him and his accusations down...see, you can use personality to explain the reason why they won't debate him, or any other excuse, but If this guy was so wrong, any evolutionist would make mince meat out of him very quickly in a live debate, yet they avoid it like the plague! Hey come on, if they have the benefit of more qualifications and new findings, what's the problem here?

I don't care if Mickey Mouse does the presenting, lies in the textbooks speak for themselves and these things need to be made aware to everybody, laypeople included, especially if some of them continue to turn up in any modern day science textbooks, continuing to add to the misleading information these kids are being fed.

You seem to have a 24/7 supply of information at your fingers tips. Congrats, you're a pro at this and something of a master! But I'm afraid that no amount of academic bluster, or riding rough shod over others with new and improved links/information, is really going to make evolution any "truer" than it failed to be years ago.

I think the fact that the evolution faith has been built on a pretty dodgy and shaky foundation and past with the likes of Charles Darwin, who himself had NIL scientific qualifications, should be more than enough, with the past hoaxes of people like Haeckel, exaggerations and bias interpretations for anybody to take "new and improved" claims with a BIG grain of salt.

The problem is the evolutionist has already decided they are right no matter what. Embarrassing past hoaxes, quotes/admissions, are usually denied in one way or the other by them or their devotees and usually they are well versed in doing so as you can see here. I'd say they could earn a degree simply on that alone!

For anybody's interest? Check this out:
Tree Fossil Spanning Many Layers Indicates All were Formed Rapidly:

Obviously we need to rethink how layers in the earth were fomed. This tree (one tree of hundreds found near Cookvile, TN in the Kettles coal mines. USA) proves it was rapid and that all the layers were formed at one time.

How long does it take to form sedimentary layers? Charles Officer is a research professor at Dartmouth. In his 1996 book, 'The Great Dinosaur Extinction Mystery' 1000 years is typical." p.56. But just look adn think about this 30 foot fossil tree. It is one of hundreds found near cookville, TN in the Kettles coal mines which derived their name from the shape of the lower portion of these fossil trees. This tree begins in one coal seam, protrudes upward through numerous layers and finally into another layer of coal.
What would happen to the top of the tree in the thousands of years necessary to cover it at the rate pstulated by Officer? Derek Ager, one of the world's best known statigraphers, addresses this challenge, acknowledging "..standing trees up to 10 M high in the Lancashire coalfield of northwest England. Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. Standing trees are known at many levels and in many parts of the world. We cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid ineed and that at other times there were long breaks in the sedimentation, though it looks uniform and continuous, "The New Catastrophism. 1993, p.49.

In spit of how it looks, long periods of time are still claimed, "shoehorned" between the layers, where there is no evidence.

I agree sosick, it's happening but it's a slow death. Certainly there are waves that are increasing and this is encouraging. Students have just not been exposed to the other side and when you're indoctrinated, it's a form of mind control and something not easy to shake off, particularly when it's been drummed into them as an established fact, when it most definitely is not and never was! Just a theory and a theory in crisis.

Oh and there are already dino and creation for kids! We have them here on video and books <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/gunshot.gif" alt="" /> Wonderful stuff too. You'd love it!

My father is actually putting together sets for people who are interested in hearing the other side. One lady has a daughter who is losing her faith because of the evolutionary belief in highschool and wasn't aware there was another side to this. so she and others like her are hopefully going to get that chance. Many stories such as this!

It's happening, but it's a slow process and more people are joining the cause! So good on you guys for somehow holding onto your faith in a secular/evolutionary ruled world and giving the creation view a hearing! and thanks for the encouragement too.

the more the merrier!

Evolutionists want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A generation of bacteria grows in a matter of hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: heat, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones4). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.



This is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how impossible it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, since that is the only way evolutionists think different species are made

There are two versions of evolution. The first (neo-Darwinism) proposed that many tiny changes made new creatures. They could not find these tiny changes between one type of creature and another in the fossil record, so a few evolutionists proposed instead that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium). Each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really one leap at a time. It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

Here is some more interesting information:
DARWINISM AND THE DETERIORATION OF THE GENOME http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp

Teach it in my church and the Truth will set you free.

...probably exile ya to be more accurate... send you far far away...

Linda you have decided that YOU have the facts, that YOUR material is factual.....as though anything outside of your belief system is rubbish or misinformation or attempts at discrediting these "wonderful " evolution scientists who have the patent on truth and life itself. Or that we and any creation scientist just "don't get it".

"The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a pdf link http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism".

Philip S. Skell*, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: "I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

*Philip S. Skell is Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University. He is sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry" in organic chemistry, and is widely known for the "Skell Rule", which was first applied to carbenes - the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. He says that during World War II "I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced."
**********

1. Alberts, Bruce, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter. 2002. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 4th edition. Garland Science, New York.

2. Anderson, G. M. 1996. Thermodynamics of Natural Systems. John Wiley & Sons, INC., Toronto.

3. Cemic, Ladislav. 2005. Thermodynamics in Mineral Sciences. Springer, New York.

4. Gillooly, James F., Andrew P. Allen, Geoffrey B. West, James H. Brown. January 4, 2005. The rate of DNA evolution: Effects of body size and temperature on the molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 140-145.

5. Gish, Duane T., PhD. Biochemistry. January 2007. A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible. Impact #403, Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research.

6. Glass, John I., Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Nina Alperovich, Shibu Yooseph, Matthew R. Lewis, Mahir Maruf, Clyde A. Hutchison III, Hamilton O. Smith, J. Craig Venter. January 10, 2006. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 425-430.

7. Lowe, Craig B., Gill Bejerano, David Haussler. May 8, 2007. Thousands of human mobile element fragments undergo strong purifying selection near developmental genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104, No. 19, pp. 8005-8010.
8. Lunyak, Victoria V., Gratien G. Prefontaine, Esperanza Núñez, Thorsten Cramer, Bong-Gun Ju, Kenneth A. Ohgi, Kasey Hutt, Rosa Roy, Angel García-Díaz, Xiaoyan Zhu, Yun Yung, Lluís Montoliu, Christopher K. Glass, Michael G. Rosenfeld. July 13, 2007. Developmentally Regulated Activation of a SINE B2 Repeat as a Domain Boundary in Organogenesis. Science, Vol. 317, No. 5835, pp. 248-251.

9. Makalowski, Wojciech. May 23, 2003. Not Junk After All. Science, Vol. 300, No. 5623, pp. 1246-1247.

10. Prigogine, Ilya, Gregoire Nicolis, Agnes Babloyants. 1972. Thermodynamics of Evolution. Physics Today, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 23-44.

11. Richardson, Michael K., James Hanken, Mayoni L. Gooneratne, Claude Pieau, Albert Raynaud, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright. July 1997. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, pp. 91-106.

12. Wood, Richard D., Michael Mitchell, John Sgouros, Tomas Lindahl. 16 February 2001. Human DNA Repair Genes. Science, Vol. 291, No. 5507, pp. 1284-1289.



Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there. --- David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003




John Michael Fischer, 2006,2007
www.newgeology.us

SoSick, I've never asked anyone here if they have a degree in science. My point all along has been that you can find the answers you need if you want to look.

The point I was making about Hovind is that his credentials are fake. He claims to have been a high school physics teacher with a doctorate. High school physics teachers, in mainstream schools, have a degree in a scientific discipline; if not physics, then maybe chemistry or geology. All Hovind would have learned is "creation science" which is pseudoscience, and this is borne out by the scientific errors he repeatedly makes. And his PhD is from a diploma mill. Why would anyone get a degree from a diploma mill and then go around calling themselves a doctor? He is not the expert he professes to be and I question why he is building this smokescreen around himself when presumably the first people he ought to be honest with are his own "flock."

About quote mines again. SoSick you said:


What, you mean you didn't say that? But you did. These are your own words. I took them from this paragraph:


By your own logic, my quote from you is an honest reflection of your views, and it's OK for me to tell everyone that SoSick said the Bible is full of trash.

If you think this is a little underhanded and unfair, then maybe creationists should stop doing it to scientists.

Actually Linda, the example you are making is not considered a quote at all. Because you are taking 2 sentences, and illogically combining them together.

Try teaching that rule in an elementary schoool as the substantiation for a quote and you will be tossed out the door for teaching trash.

nice try . just more of an expose of your lack of comprehension and irrational thinking though.

I should take that post of yours above and send it to every school and business in your neighborhood. That will ensure that not only will you never teach your nonsense to children, but even that businesses don't hire you to do secretarial work.

Maybe you can get a job pumping gas.

BTW, Linda, my daughter began her primary education at a Christian school, being taught by teachers with very similar backgrounds to Ken Hovind's.

And her first year and then some were stellar. The teachers were absolutely excellent. They had these kids writing beautifully, in cursive, in kindergarten. They had them learning to read and write primary spanish, in kindergarten, on top of everything else. Her classmates were smart and considerate. She dressed in a smart uniform, and looked topnotch, they also taught the kids manners and basic etiquette. She was quite a young lady.

At a certain point however I was forced because of a temporary financial situation to enroll her in the public school down the street. What a horror. She was told that she was not allowed to write in cursive, and the curriculum was a year behind where she already was for her level, a lot if the kids in her new class could barely read. Aside from a few, her classmates were not very nice to her. They mocked her for wearing pretty dresses, they would hit her, one of her classmates enjoyed stepping on her hands during lessons where they would sit on the floor. She was unhappy but there wasn't much we could do at the time. Within a few months her hand writing was atrocious, she began refusing to wear dresses, and she would come home burping and farting as her new jokes.

To this very day, she has never regained the stunning cursive writing skills she learned way back in kindergarten, which were forced out her in public school. She reads very well, but I taught her that beginning at age 2-3. She could index the encyclopedia and look up words at age 4-5, before even starting school, so those are skills she began life with, not credited to her schooling at all. I made sure she had the basics. But her handwriting, another basic skill she once had has been lost. She has never regained the beautiful handwriting she had in kindergarten. she has never been made an offer of spanish class in public school thus far. these things Linda, she learned in kindergarten at a Christian school.. Kindergarten. She refuses to wear dresses to this day. Her manners stink. That Linda, is what public schiol has done to my child, and there's more but i won't get into it.

So, if you want to continue to deride Christian education, that's your choice. But as a parent who has experienced both sides of the coin first hand, I will also tell you first hand that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and it is rather apparent from your presence here exactly why students in public schools are failing to meet the grades of previous generations.

You are a stellar example of why public education is failing. It's not the kids Linda, kids haven't changed all that much over the years. it's the teachers. With the rare exception, they stink.

The quote mine I got from your words is the same technique I've seen used on scientists. Not all the time, but it is certainly one of the methods. Of course it's dishonest, that's my point.

What on earth has the rest of this got to do with evolution??

I'll also thank you to stop the personal comments once again. Even if you knew anything about me as a teacher, which you don't, then you have no business throwing more ad hominem arguments at me. I'm still waiting for you to explain the actual science behind creationist claims, e.g. where the geological evidence is that the global flood really occurred.

Right. But you have not seen it here have you? Or used by Ken Hovind have you? you probably have seen it done by dishonest people like yourself.

Stop playing games Linda. it's obnoxious along time ago.

What this has to do with evolution? Nothing. It's a comment on your honesty and integrity.

Linda, if you think your skills as a teacher are not apparent in your writings and reasonings, you really are much further lost and worse off than I even imagined previously.

Well as I said before, i am done arguing with you. You Linda, present nothing but a non-stop argument and dumbing down of any issue.

I wish you good luck, you'll need plenty of it.

have a nice day.

To Bex:

Haeckel has been rather villified. In many ways he was an important figure. The claims that he deliberately faked his embryological drawings have not been substantiated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

What’s more, the main reason creationists seem to like to villify him is because he influenced Darwin; however the embryo drawings were not published until after On the Origin of Species, and other discoveries of Haecke’sl have stood the test of time. If scientists were trying to conspire to hide the fact that some of them sometimes make mistakes, why do you think Haeckel’s own mistakes are common knowledge? Theories are tested and re-tested over time and the ones that don’t hold up are thrown out.

“Embarrassing” hoaxes? Who were the people who exposed the hoaxes? Scientists, checking the evidence.

Quotes and “admissions”? If you choose to believe quote mines even though you have been given several explicit examples of how they do not accurately reflect scientists’ views, then my next question to you would be whether you base your interpretation of reality on facts or belief when the two seem to be in conflict. Quotes mean nothing in a debate anyway because they are an “argument from authority,” which is a logical fallacy. Instead of referring directly to the evidence, you are claiming “x” is true because someone said so. Scientists don’t take each other’s word for it, they verify the evidence for themselves, which is why studies (unlike Hovind’s dissertation) have to be rigorously referenced.

There is no “typical” amount of time it takes for sedimentary layers to form. I don’t know what context the quote from Charles Officer is taken from but he would no doubt have been referring to a specific site or a specific type of sedimentary rock.

Scientists have known for a long time that while some sedimentary layers are deposited slowly over many years, others can indeed form in catastrophic conditions, e.g. when a natural dam bursts. Upright fossilised trees within sedimentary layers were indeed formed quickly. Derek Ager, quoted, would have known this. Geologists who studied these formations over 100 years ago knew it. I suspect that the final sentence in the quote from him has been inserted after some missing text to give the impression that scientists are wrong about how sedimentary layers form. Can you give me a link to this text so that I can check?

How about giving me some real evidence now? Like I asked from SoSick – some bona fide geological evidence for a global flood? Upright trees, like the hadrosaur fossil mentioned in another thread here, cannot themselves prove that there was a worldwide global flood. They could easily have formed in localised conditions.

Linda,

You said:


I've watched you commit character assassination against Kent Hovind for months now, so Laura just got off the phone with the Colorado Department of Higher Education in the process of researching this subject.

[color:"brown"]Please tell us exactly what credentials related to Kent Hovind are fake.[/color]

You are making this assertion so according to your own ethics, you have the burden of proving it.

You are essentially calling Kent a liar. This is a serious charge so please show us proof of your accusation.


Furthermore, this technique of character assassination is poor debate style. We should be looking at content. As of yet, you have not shown to me one point of content that Kent Hovind makes about evolution or creation that is faulty:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Of course character assassination is poor debate style. It's a logical fallacy called ad hominem -- but it's only a fallacy if the points made have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, e.g. claiming "You can't believe anything this person says because he is a homosexual."

Bex said:


I have heard him on his videos state that he was a high school physics teacher. He did not qualify that by explaining that he would have been teaching his brand of "creation science" in non-mainstream schools. Mainstream schools would not employ someone to teach science who did not have a scientific degree; his bachelor's was in "education and Bible."

His doctorate degree is from a diploma mill.

The point I have been making is that anyone can learn about science if they are willing to read up on it. It does not require a scientific degree. However, Hovind uses his claims about his credentials to add an aura of authority to what he is saying and this is patently misleading. I have provided my evidence for his credentials earlier in this thread but I will repeat them here.

Hovind says on his "Dr. Dino" web site that he graduated from Midwestern Baptist College in Michigan in education and Bible and received his master´s and doctoral degrees in education from Patriot University, "a small Christian University in Colorado." (http://www.drdino.com/FAQs/FAQmisc.htm#Q: Where did you get your degree?) In Part One of his videotape seminar, he boasts a "PhD in education."

MBC offers little science instruction, and it is saturated with religious doctrine; the objective of the MBC Department of Education is to train students "for teaching in Christian schools" (http://www.midwesternbaptist.edu/school/courseeducation.htm) The Division of Science offers only 4 undergraduate courses (one is "Creation Science"), all slanted toward Biblical literalism (http://www.midwesternbaptist.edu/school/coursescience.htm). The objective of the sole science education course offered by the MBC Department. of Education is to learn "to present to an elementary class the universe which God has marvelously created" (http://www.midwesternbaptist.edu/school/courseeducation.htm). Hovind´s education at MBC would never qualify him to teach in any school with a legitimate science curriculum.

Hovind´s credentials from Patriot University are even less substantial. PU was formerly in Colorado Springs CO, but is now in Alamos CO, in a house near the College Heights Baptist Church The street address ["External Studies Department Bulletin," Fall 1997] is the residential address of PU´s Executive Director of External Studies, Dr Lonnie Skinner (http://www.anywho.com). The Bulletin indicates how a university could simply relocate to another town: There is no faculty, and credit is offered for "life experience and ministry evaluation". The courses, workbooks, audiotapes, and videotapes can be completed in 2-4 weeks. Tuition is a voluntary, monthly "freewill offering". The only graduate science course is "SC 701 - Biblical Basis of Modern Science". The DMin is offered in Biblical Studies, Pastoral Studies, Evangelism and Missions, Christian Education, and Christian Counseling. Patriot is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which Steve Levicoff in Name It and Frame It classifies as an "accrediting mill" (Levicoff, Chapter 12). The US Dept of Education does not recognize AAATI as an accrediting agency (US Dept of Education, September 1998, p 28). Hovind´s PhD clearly does not meet even minimally respectable academic standards.

Finally, you have again linked to Hovind's site. I have explained to you why I do not rebut entire websites. It takes you a second to link to it, and it would take me days to reply. I am debating with you, not Hovind. If you want to take a point what Hovind makes on its site and present it for discussion here then I will be happy to oblige.

Maybe we can start with why the sun burns. He's got some interesting ideas about that.

Nebraska is a great place to get a degree in commercial hog farming.

On a clear day you can smell and almost taste the cows peeing on the flat rocks. It's a marvel of natural science.

How does it happen?

Where do all the hogs on a commercial hog farm poop?

What is a hog's favorite pastime?

How many Nebraskan families will 1000 hogs feed?

I'm sorry Linda. I'm just not letting you off the hook that easily. You are not being honest here. You are clearly backpedaling (again) and trying to convince this forum (and likely yourself) that you didn't say something that you actually did say. Now you've been dishonest twice. (In truth, you've made many similar posts about Kent's credentials, but I'm being kind here.)

This is immoral.

You made false statements about someone that reflects on their character. Now the proper thing to do is to be honest and admit what you've done.

[color:"brown"]You said that Kent's credentials are fake[/color]. Here is the quote:

[color:"red"]"The point I was making about Hovind is that his credentials are fake."[/color]

Now you are modifying your position to this:

[color:"red"]"Hovind´s PhD clearly does not meet even minimally respectable academic standards"[/color]

There's a big difference, so in reference to being respectable, unless you can qualify your statement without backpedaling or coloring the "perception" of your very words, then Kent deserves a sincere apology from you.

What is your definition of "fake"?

I heard him claim on his video that he was a high school physics teacher. His version of "physics" does not match up with what the rest of the scientific community calls "physics." He seems to think the sun burns by internal combustion, for example.

He says he stopped being a physics teacher because of the "lies in the textbooks." It's ironically a pretty damning statement, considering that the textbooks he was trained to use, and no doubt was using, were creation "science" books.

If you consider a PhD from a diploma mill to be "real" credentials then I think that is also a minority view.

[color:"brown"]You said that Kent's credentials are fake[/color]. Here is the quote:

[color:"red"]"The point I was making about Hovind is that his credentials are fake."[/color]

Now you are modifying your position to this:

[color:"red"]"Hovind´s PhD clearly does not meet even minimally respectable academic standards"[/color]

There's a big difference, so in reference to being respectable, unless you can qualify your statement without backpedaling or coloring the "perception" of your very words, then Kent deserves a sincere apology from you.

---

[color:"brown"]Amazingly, when I first called you on this last night, Laura and I agreed that your tactic would be to question the definition of "fake".[/color]

I'm not kidding.

You're beginning to sound more like Bill Clinton, you know; He doesn't inhale either.

---

Now, please just admit that you were wrong here Linda because otherwise, there is just no respectable way to squirm out of this.

Apparently we do disagree on what "fake" means. Most people call a degree from a diploma mill a fake. Accepting his PhD credentials is an insult to everyone who has done the work of achieving a bona fide PhD.

I'll apologise to him when he apologises for spreading scientific ignorance to those who will believe him, and for attacking science being taught in public schools. Out of all the creationists whose claims I've read, his are the most scientifically ludicrous. I have zero respect for the man.

It true Russ. It's a lot like comparing a teaching degree from a Nebraska state college to a real teaching degree from Brown University.

One just doesn't compare to the other. One college has a lot of quotas to fill to continue getting funding while the other has people competing for openings at all levels and multi-million dollar endowments.

Linda, when are you going to answer my questions? You have not addressed my questioons. how many Nebraskan families can 1000 hogs feed? What is a hog's favorite pastime?

Are you saying you don't know?

Do you actually have anything significant to contribute? If not then don't expect me to pay any attention to these kinds of remarks.

Are you tying to skate by the questions Linda? that might work in a college in NE but it won't work every where else you go.

Anyone with an agriculture degree from a Nebraska college could answer those questions. they are simple enough.

I'm very disappointed with you Linda, as you are again twisting the truth to fit your purposes, and you are, as usual, doing this in a very sly way. This technique manipulates the emotions of those reading your posts into feeling a certain way about someone without providing any real information in an honest way that allows the reader to make their own decisions. It's emotionally-based spin-journalism.

First, let's be clear on this subject.

This subject is not about the academic weight of the diploma Hovind holds. That is another subject entirely (you often glump things together to confuse the subject at hand and to coerce the conclusion). What we are talking about is the fact that you worded the statement in such as way as to cause the normal reader to believe that Kent Hovind lied in stating what credentials he possesses.

You said:

"The point I was making about Hovind is that his credentials are fake."

Now, most people reading this statement that you made would know that any person who has "fake" diplomas would certainly know they had fake diplomas and therefore, this statement strongly asserts that Kent Hovind is a liar.

In order to be intellectually honest, you should have said that his credentials are inadequate. That would have been an honest expression of your position (as we know it), and honesty is very important here because you are making serious accusations about a real living person. They deserve to have the truth told about them rather than being fed through the Linda-spin machine.

Now, it seems that you have an opinion about how Kent should have worded his introduction. You said:



So you seem to think that this "qualification" in his statement would have made a difference.

I hold the strong opinion that you would have found another way to bash his character, even though you admit that his credentials are immaterial. In short, nothing is really good enough, and this, because this position has nothing to do with intellect. It's a position you hold and will not let go of regardless of evidence. You stated yourself that you won't rebut videos that I post links to, but let me ask you:

Have you even watched them?

How strange it is that you admit that credentials are immaterial to a discussion like this yet you continuously bring them up. Hmmm.

Throughout my contact with you, I have found you to be a woman that walks close-to-the-margin in terms of intellectual integrity. Your posts are littered with just this kind of insinuation and innuendo so as to play on people's emotions. This is not good.

Remember, if you're going to stand up to truth, then the truth about yourself will be revealed.

But let's dig further.



[color:"brown"]Strawman Alert[/color]

Like I said previously, I'm going to start calling you on this behavior as well as your posts are littered with strawman arguments.

Now, there are numerous certifications that you can get for herbal education. Some are better than others and it's up to the person evaluating the education of another to decide if they respect or disrespect the organization providing the certification, as it should be. This method of utilizing reputation to discern one's character and background is far superior than the current system of state-accreditation and licensing which only gives an extremely false sense of security.

I was part of a state-accredited college for 11 years and was indirectly involved in the accreditation process and let me tell you, most aspects of it have nothing to do with educational quality and most other aspects of it are a joke. Most things that are put into government hands eventually sink to the lowest levels of integrity and efficiency. Those who have not yet discovered this are socialists. Learn from history.

So the bottom line is that Kent probably holds all of the credentials he claims to. You just don't like them and believe that he did it to give an "aura" (your word) of credibility to his character. Did you know that this is the reason many (perhaps most) people do it, according to some polls?

In reference to Kent Hovind's character:

I believe Kent is a nice guy and a strong Christian who wanted a Christian education and got one. Since the accreditation laws pertaining to "religious" schools are lax in the U.S., these schools may offer degrees without the depth of requirement of non-religious schools.

Nevertheless, from what I know about him, he is a man of excellent character and is knowledgeable enough to submerge any evolutionist in their own magic. He is a great debater and, in my opinion, wins every debate he enters. This is, of course, why he is a favorite character-assassination target of evolutionists.

The information he teaches is solid and extremely revealing of the ulterior motives of the "establishment" in promoting socialism and centralization of power and he has worked tirelessly to free people from this type of enslavement. Ironically, he is working to help the very people who persecute him, but isn't that just the way the world has always been?

[color:"brown"]Remember what they did to Christ?[/color]

If anyone takes the time to explore the information Kent presents, they will begin to see the massive ocean of lies that have been perpetrated upon the world and the lies that exist in the so-called academic literature relating to the myth of evolution.

If anyone cares to listen, explore, and examine, they will eventually realize that—Hovind is right.

Even the fact that he is now serving a prison sentence for tax evasion is an indicator of his deep conviction. He may be considered a criminal, but so were the American forefathers who initiated the separation from a tyrannical, overbearing and completely corrupt monarchy who weighted people down with the same system that you indirectly promote when you promote evolution, namely socialism, i.e. secular humanism.

He is serving a sentence for a crime that, according to my research and my many others', is not a crime at all. It is only another fallacy (your word) in the legal system used to oppress people.

The ultimate irony is that a man came to you with liberating truth and you assassinated him.

Tell me; Who is the fool?

A lot of other people have defrauded the US government with "deep conviction" too. So it's entirely fair for everyone else to pay taxes except him?

You will notice I haven't "bashed" the character of any other creationist leaders on here, though I might have said after pointing out their scientific errors that they don't know what they're talking about in that respect. Bex mentioned Hovind and his doctorate and I posted the information I have about that.

It's got nothing to do with where a university sits in the educational hierarchy. The fact of the matter is that if you get a PhD, people expect it to meet certain minimum requirements. As I said previously, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which Steve Levicoff in Name It and Frame It classifies as an "accrediting mill" (Levicoff, Chapter 12). The US Dept of Education does not recognize AAATI as an accrediting agency (US Dept of Education, September 1998, p 28).

Hovind's PhD in education is not recognised by the US Department of Education.


By my reckoning, in claiming that he was a high school physics teacher and calling himself a doctor, there aren't many definitions of "fake" that Hovind misses.

I have no need at all to assassinate his character though, because most of his claims reflect his lack of scientific knowledge. I've said several times to pick one to present for discussion and I'll ask you to do it again. Or we could talk about his belief that the sun burns by combustion. Is that what creation science teaches, or not?

A lot of bible colleges probably aren't accredited by 'recognized' standards Linda. They are bible colleges, there really isn't a format for the type of accredidation you are suggesting is required to gain your personal respect. As bible colleges however, they are recognized by Christian schools, missionary organizations, churches, things of that nature.

If you took your NE state college teaching degree to a christian school, they probably wouldn't even glance at it either unless it were accompanied by coursework and a couple years minimum completion at a recognized bible college. Not a govt recognized bible college, a church recognized bible college, and that recognition will also very depending on the denomination.

Hovind may not be qualified to teach at Harvard, but neither are you. Neither am I. The only thing I am lacking however is 1.5 years toward completion of a masters, which I go just about anywhere to get and still be in the running because of previous background. And then i literally, could teach at harvard or yale, but in an entirely different category. You would have a very difficult time ever reaching that with your background, unless suddenly out of the blue you qualify yourself for a more competitive education... essentially, redo your bachelors at a school that harvard recognzes as adequate, or complete it if you haven't yet, and acknowledgment of success in a certain area from your peers, which thus far has not been seen. If I had, mixed into there, coursework and semesters from an unaccredited bible college, most assuredly, it would not hurt me but would add interest to the rest of my qualifications. If Hovind added coursework at Harvard theological seminary or something similar, he might then be in the running considering his background... a recognized name whether or not everyone agrees with him, and achievments in that area. It draws interest, Linda.

Bible colleges are training centers for evangelical missionaries, clergy and teachers for the most part. Some people use them to simply get a greater depth of understanding of the bible.

You can define fake all day but you are really only defining fake from your own perspective, which not everyone is always going to share. no matter which way you turn hovind has a lot more cards on the table than you, who are judging him, have got.

Hovind is not qualified to teach anywhere other than in a school that teaches creationism. He is passing on scientific ignorance to the next generation there.

Why should the minimum standards for qualification in Christian schools be any lower than they are in other schools? Are you telling me that credentials that are not recognised by anyone other than a religious organisation -- no academic organisations -- are as good as or even better than credentials recognised by the mainstream? Do you have evidence for this assertion?

Well, you call it scientific ignorance.

but much to your disdain, a lot of the rest of the population of the planet thinks evolution is scientific ignorance.

Hovind has most obviously qualified himself to teach at Christian schools, he is even qualified to teach at christian colleges, very well qualified. Those kids ARE interested in learning the things he teaches, and are entitled to and free to learn his views if they desire.

a lot of christians think the standards at public schools and colleges are quite low. i am in agreement with that crowd, very much so. a lot of people homeschool their kids for those very reasons.

Everything is a matter of perspective.

If you need evidence just check out any Christian college and see if you qualify to teach at one. I can assure you, you do not. Their standards are much higher than those you have set for yourself. you are not qualified to teach at any college as a matter of fact, christian or otherwise. Likewise, Most private schools have different requirements for teachers/professors than public schools, whether they are Christian or not. And all Christian schools are private schools.

Your derogatory remarks toward Hovind really are just comments from the peanut gallery, Linda.

Professionals and recognized people in all walks of life, Christian or otherwise, are used to it.

Do you know what a diploma mill is and why Patriot College qualifies as one?

from Wikipedia:

Yes Linda, thank you.

Are you aware of the fact that prestigious universities like columbia, harvard, yale, they all confer life experience degrees on people. Do these fit your definition too?

i think Linda, you don't have a lot of real life eperience to judge these things by and whenever you run across a comment that satisfies your desires you get caught up in it.

so you don't think that bible colleges are valid or necessary. great that's your opinion. you have made your point how many times now?

just another comment from your perspective in the peanut gallery Linda, sorry.

An actual diploma mill is a place twhere you do absolutely nothing except pay a fee and get a piece of paper. Bible colleges don't really fit that category Linda. You simply disagree with their curriculum,. tough beans.

Do you have any idea how many public, yes public, like the one down your street, elementary and high schools there are in this country that are not accredited? Hundreds, maybe thousands, Linda. So i guess those are all diploma mills by your standards too.

peanut gallery no kidding. I think Bill Clinton has a life experience diploma mill degree or two too. Lots of well known people do...they get honored all the time that way. Why don't you pick on Bill for a bit. This is so tiring and boring already.

I can't believe you guys are trying to legitimise a degree from a diploma mill. A quick Wiki reveals the following:



If you still want to defend him in spite of all this evidence then I think you and I are living on different planets.

Linda, write your congressmen and request that they draw up some sort of standardized testing of theology that would enable bible colleges to become accredited based on the scores of their students.

good luck.