Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
ps..FREE KENT HOVIND
Free Kent Hovind?

Tell that to Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind).

If he would quit lying, he might get out of prison.

But now he has a brand new conviction and a new trial later this month on more charges.

You know how it goes with pathological liars.

If lying about the age of the earth, lying about a global flood, and lying about dinosaurs coexisting with humans were crimes, he'd be in the slammer for life.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,782
2,952
113
Funny, I had never heard of him until you brought it up in numerous posts, Jack!
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
One more try, Jack, since you keep side stepping this very important issue.

As for theology, you have never answered the question I have posed on several occasions.

"If there is no first Adam, why did Paul call Jesus the second Adam?" You are not just calling into question the opening chapters of Genesis, but the whole New Testament.

"45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." 1 Cor. 15:45-49
I did answer you, Angela.

Let me refresh your memory.

You directed the very same question to me on another thread.

I noticed that you directed the very same question to Bowman on yet another thread.

I pointed you to that thread and said I agreed with Bowman.

You did not challenge his response to you.

Bowman also said, not to you, to someone else:

"By being a YEC you are inadvertently preventing seekers from knowing the Truth of Jesus Christ....as many will no doubt think that a 6K year old earth is not only laughable but that Christianity must be as well."

And there again, Bowman hits the nail on the head.

But let me ask you, Angela, don't you think you should tell kodiak that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint?

He keeps saying it never happened.

You did say on this thread on post #22 that: "In fact, both versions are valid, and Jesus and the apostles quoted from both, including Paul."
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
JackH,

Could you please start by telling us what you believe
Some of the same as you with respect to Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind).

I noticed on the thread "Kent Hovind is one to watch!" you said:

"I think Hovind mixed a lot of truth with a lot of error.

I think that is pretty well documented.

If you do a little research into how exactly Hovind wound up in prison,
and how the cases went, and what things he did during the legal processes...
you may be a little reluctant to just believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

A lot of the apologetics information he gave was good, and some of it was not.
I don't think I'd use him as my source for apologetics material.

There are plenty of other people who do a fine job explaining creationism.

I think I'd get my materials elsewhere."

The truth you are talking about must be when he admitted he is a convict.

No doubt you are talking about Pat Robertson when you speak of those who do a fine job of explaining creationism. At least he got the part about Ken Ham making a fool of Christians with his 6,000-year-old world right.
 

kodiak

Senior Member
Mar 8, 2015
4,995
290
83

No doubt you are talking about Pat Robertson when you speak of those who do a fine job of explaining creationism. At least he got the part about Ken Ham making a fool of Christians with his 6,000-year-old world right.
The reason I am showing the problems in evolution is because of the attitude of evolutionists that say we don't know what we are talking about. I am not trying to attack you, just trying to clear up the misconceptions that "just because you don't believe in evolution means you are stupid." We have a logical reason to not believe evolution, just like you all have a logical reason to believe evolution. I will leave you all with an article from a very well known chemist who actually makes molecules. It is interesting to read. I recommend reading the whole article.
Funny, I had never heard of him until you brought it up in numerous posts, Jack!
I still don't know who he is....
I think Jack needs to read what I wrote, the quote is right here.....Jack, you may want to read the article in it, It shows that great scientists even don't accept the science behind evolution yet.
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
Swaggart is a given. I wouldnt compare Graham to Swaggart in any way. Swaggart fell,lied about it and refused to take correction. I dont know how you could compare Graham to that.
I wouldn't compare the two either..... they're nearly opposites. Swaggart played the fire-breathing conservative while Graham is a liberal that won't preach on Hell.

I suggest you read this site: Billy Graham: Rome's American Idol
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
Q: Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
A: Yes.

However, that doesn't give the U.S. government the moral or constitutional right to subject him to cruel and unusual punishment by ensuring a life sentence because he didn't pay his taxes and was disingenuous about it.

Al Capone only got eleven years and was out in in eight. Sammy the Bull murdered nineteen people and walked scot free (after testifying). Etc... etc... etc...
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,782
2,952
113
I did answer you, Angela.

Let me refresh your memory.

You directed the very same question to me on another thread.

I noticed that you directed the very same question to Bowman on yet another thread.

I pointed you to that thread and said I agreed with Bowman.

You did not challenge his response to you.

Bowman also said, not to you, to someone else:

"By being a YEC you are inadvertently preventing seekers from knowing the Truth of Jesus Christ....as many will no doubt think that a 6K year old earth is not only laughable but that Christianity must be as well."

And there again, Bowman hits the nail on the head.

But let me ask you, Angela, don't you think you should tell kodiak that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint?

He keeps saying it never happened.

You did say on this thread on post #22 that: "In fact, both versions are valid, and Jesus and the apostles quoted from both, including Paul."

I'm still waiting for YOUR response as I have utterly no use for Bowman and his Qur'an loving self.

Put it another way, since you keep refusing to answer me directly.

What did Jesus come to save us from? Sin.

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Matt 1:21

So under the paradigm of evolution, at what point did sin enter the world? Never, I would guess. But you can feel free to correct me if you can find a passage in the Bible to the contrary.

The Bible is quite clear as to how sin entered the world. New Testament, of course.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:12-14

Once again, you have a theological conundrum when you refuse to believe in the model of creation.

As for your absurd quoting of the Muslim lover, Bowman, the thing that actually made me believe in Christ, was realizing that because evolution was utterly bankrupt from a scientific point of view (which I have not even gotten into in this thread!) then I realized that Creation was the alternative that best fit the scientific and the theological model. I surrendered my life to Christ when I realized that evolution was false. (So much for you and Bowman!)

I have not set any dates, but I would say closer to now than any model of evolution predicts. As far as which OT manuscripts were quoted, once again, I will tell you. BOTH!

Feel free to quote the Bible if you reply to me, concerning the theology, which you missed doing in the last thread and this thread, proposing another entirely unsatisfactory explanation which deals with evangelism, not theology.




But why would I expect anything else from someone who appears to have no clue as to what is in the Bible, and is so intent on lying to people about the truth of creation so they might get saved? Saved from what, I ask you again? From millions of years of evolution??

Do you not see the ridiculousness of your theology?
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
So how do we know it has always been expanding? How do we know it has always been a steady rate?
Well, we assume it because that's what data thus far, since we've been collecting it, shows it - it's accelerating. We notice the expansion by the stars spreading apart, which Ham's ministry admits, and even quotes Scripture for. See, the difference between the Creation model that says the laws changed upon the Flood, and the secular model, is that the secular model has no evidence that the laws changed or was different, so we assume they were the same. And even have data backing this. No data indicating a change 4,000 years ago - seeing how we have TREES older than that. ^_^

Angela, you are positively right - science is about guessing, and testing those guesses. Science is about making predictions. I remember as a young grade schooler during a science experiment, thinking "why ask questions and predict - I could be wrong anyway." I didn't understand why being able to predict laws was necessary to utilize them to our advantage. We were able to go into space, because we were able to predict upon prior knowledge that building a shuttle thus with a certain formula of engineering would allow it to thrust in the fashion needed and all that.

That is the biggest problem with the Creation model. Not because there's a God in it per say - but because IT CANNOT PREDICT anything. If Creation scientists predict anything, it would be based on already established science... but it will weaken innovation because it is, as you complained about secular science, fixed. There's not more learning. Tell me how in the world would the Bible have ever told us how to go to the moon?

The Bible did not reveal to us the laws we've utilized to do such. And fathermore, we (USA) are falling behind in the world in terms of science education. Kids are not nearly as bright as they were 50, or 100 years ago, in this subject. And Nye points this out in his debate - if you train kids to think there's nothing more to know beyond what Genesis tells you, we are going to fall behind economically, because we will fall behind the rest of the world in innovation. I think that ship has already sailed. But Japan is a secular country, and you see how they seem to produce much higher quality products than we do - we do it overseas because it's cheaper. This country runs on what is the lowest price.

And how would I explain the First Adam? Well, since I take the Bible as inspired but not perfect, I would say that fell on Paul's limited understanding scientifically. But the message is still clear - Jesus is the Second Adam in that He shows what a perfect Man should look like. Now, I am notorious with loved ones and FB friends for getting hung up on details, and I am able to see understand Paul's point without it having to be literally true.

Isn't the point and lessons and teachings of the Bible far more important than being literally, word for word true?

This is a new concept to me....I have never seen a scientist use this way to explain it before....
o_O Really? So far as I know, this is a standard piece of evidence in college classrooms. And that is not all; I believe in our class we learned like three or four major observational pieces that lends to the idea of evolution and an old earth. The fact you've never heard of the redshift as evidence is really surprising.

You sound genuinely interested, so I'll trade with you - I'll pull out my old notes, and summarize them in a post for you, and I'll read your link. Now, bare in mind that I am not technically minded - I am more abstract in my thinking, and science is by far one of my worst subjects. So once I post that, please verify it yourself, if you wish. But it will come directly from my class notes and powerpoints.

I am used to the dating of the oldest rock on the earth explanation. The reason I am showing the problems in evolution is because of the attitude of evolutionists that say we don't know what we are talking about.
See, here's the thing. One thing that I think really paints the AiG in the bad light it's in, is because many times Christians who feel there is strong evidence for it are lumped in with atheists, because it's an "atheist model." Honestly, for there to be a bridge of understanding made between these two camps, is that YEC need to drop this linking evolution with atheism. Pointing to 100 year old textbooks, before the civil rights for pete's sake, as evidence that it promotes racism is ludicrous! Why not we just turn this around point to the good old Curse of Ham superstition in the Church, that was backed by Scripture? I know Ken Ham passionately rebukes that, and that's good. But then he turns around and points to texts out of their context as well.

I think another cause of this friction, and the greatest culprit, is deliberate misrepresentation or oversimplification of the other side's argument. Or a conscious effort to deflect and refusal to listen honestly. This happens BOTH WAYS. And it has ALWAYS been this way with mankind, no matter what the topic or controversy. So I think what compounds the division is also not owning up to the fact that one's own side is involved in the strawmen, even if it's not that person in particular.

I am not trying to attack you, just trying to clear up the misconceptions that "just because you don't believe in evolution means you are stupid." We have a logical reason to not believe evolution, just like you all have a logical reason to believe evolution.
Well, I'm sorry if I have come off as anti-YEC - I'm not. What I am is anti-state endorsed religion, and I'm anti-bigotry, I'm anti-deception, and I'm anti-arrogance. Secular science is concerned with what you can see, what is observable. Religion, ideally, is about what you can't see, and how what you can't see - your convictions - shapes your principals and morals. We walk by faith, not by sight. Right? Why do we need to prove this? Is it because we are afraid it pulls people from the faith? How would it, unless you teach those that their faith DEPENDS on it? Many many Christians feel the evidence points to this. And if Jesus says people know you are the Church by how you treat one another, how exactly is throwing insults on a forum testifying of Christ? It's not.

I will check it out, thank you. And if you don't mind a two hour video, please check out the Ham/Nye debate on YouTube. Honestly, I think Ham did the YEC movement a grave injustice that night. I'm not particularly fond of the model, but then my approach to Scripture has changed as well, so that has given me the flexibility to consider secular evidence. And I can tell you as one who was YEC and surfed the AiG site quite a bit, and later taking an entry level college science course, that they DO misrepresent or oversimplify the arguments made. Some arguments are not addressed. Perhaps it's not like that in the whole movement, as I know other ministries are involved, but AiG really does misrepresent secular science, on a whole.
 
G

GaryA

Guest
And the Apocrypha was in King James Bibles for several hundred years.
Your definition of 'several' must be "a whole lot less" [ in number ] than mine...

What year is it said that the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV? 1885?

That would make the absolute maximum number of centuries .......... ~ 3 ?

A 'few' is three --- 'several' is "a whole lot more"...

:)
 
G

GaryA

Guest
Explaining using chemistry .. I could but I'm lazy, I like keeping my post short. Its just basic gene selection from parents. Dad skin color is (Bb) Mom is (Yy) and you a 're born with (By) you moves to a place with little Sun your proteins in your DNA can change so on and so on. 100 years later everybody is( yy) from your family. Lol then somebody can move to a place with a lot of sun and get there proteins back too Bb over some century's . there's some basics for ya
And, the whole time this process is occuring, it is still:

~ an Ape
~ a Dog
~ a Bird
~ a Giraffe
~ a Human
etc.

That is 'micro' - not 'macro' - evolution... ;)

:)
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
In this excerpt from my commentary hyperlinks are disabled. they are functional in the original document.


OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis

Genesis 1

{Return to: Table of Contents }

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
1 At first, God created the heavens and the earth.

Most translations translate ’B’reeshiyt’ as “In the beginning”; but, while Hebrew has a definite article “Ha(w)”, it is not used here. Accuracy demands “In beginning” or “At first”.
The Hebrew word ‘bara’, used to signify creation from nothing, occurs in the first verse and is not seen again until the fifth day when God created sea creatures and birds
For classification purposes, science divides living things into Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and species. While the Bible is not specific about how broad “kind” is, when it says that God created life “after its kind”, it is certain that common usage does not allow an interpretation less narrow than Family. This precludes dogs having evolved from anything but dogs; but allows all dogs (foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, hyenas, etc.) to have come from the same ancestral parents. If you are inclined to interpret ‘Kind’ more narrowly than ‘Family’; I have no quarrel with you. There is nothing in the original language to preclude a narrower interpretation, and I believe that in areas where the Bible is not specific, any interpretation which does not depart from the idiom and common usage of the original language is permissible. If we elect to believe something that is inaccurate and which is not essential to salvation then I believe the Lord will correct us in His own time. (“Howbeit, when He the Spirit Of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth....”) ( Jn 16:13) If you elect to interpret ‘Kind’ less narrowly than ‘Family’, you break with idiom and common usage and I believe that failure to treat the Bible as a higher standard of authority puts one’s salvation in question. It is not my role to determine where you will spend eternity; but I am told to be concerned about your salvation when you put your own thoughts above Biblical teaching.

We know from Jn 1:1-3 and Col 1:13-16, that God performed this creative work in the person of Jesus (Yeshua).
See Jn 1:3. {Return to: Ge 1:10, Lk 1:2, Jn 1:1, Jn 1:3 }
2 And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
2 Sometime later, the earth was a desolation and a waste and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

While there are no errors in the KJV translation of this verse, my alternate reading is equally free from errors and is set forth as another possible reading NOT as a correction.
In any case, it is noteworthy that the waters are already present.
{Return to: Is 24:10, Is 34:11, Jer 4:23 }

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
3 Sometime later God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

(See note 1:2)
There is nothing to indicate whether God is creating light for the first time or allowing light from a previously created sun to penetrate the atmospheric mists. In any case, the light already had the cycles of evening and morning which are commonly attributed to the sun’s relatively constant position with respect to the earth’s rotation around its polar axis. (See verse 5) {Return to: Jer 1:10 }

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God distinguished the light from the darkness.

(See note 1:2) To account for the different treatment of ‘and’ here, I see no reason to apply the grammatical notion of subsequence to events within a single creative day or between days that have morning and evening (the 24 hour variety).

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

{Return to: Lk 22:7 } 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
6 And God said, Let there be a horizon (or an expanse) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Adding more order to the chaos, God places a horizon between the seas and the atmospheric mists.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
7 And God made manifest the horizon, and divided the waters which were under the horizon from the waters which were above the horizon: and it was so.

The Hebrew word translated “God made” (yaahs  ) signifies ‘made’ in the broadest sense and includes such ideas as: called forth, made manifest, allowed to appear or observed. Here again there is nothing in the language to help us to determine whether made is intended (original creation) or made manifest is intended (re-creation). We have a clue in that it seems strange that God would create light apart from the sun when he planned to have a sun. If in this verse, He called forth or allowed to appear a sun which was previously created but hidden and was the source of the light in verse 3; it would be much less problematic. I believe that this is re-creation after a cataclysmic upheaval engendered by the fall of Satan.
(See Is 14:12-15 ) {Return to: Gen 1:16 , Ge 7:11 }

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

{Return to: Lk 22:7 }

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear and it was so.

Here, with no changes in the translation, we see that the dry land is already present and only needs to be uncovered. This seems to me far more consistent with re-creation than original creation.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

As in English, the Hebrew text uses the same word ‘haweretz’ for the planet Earth.
(Ge 1:1) and the dry land (Ge 1:10)

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Here God says nothing about creating or making plants at this time. Rather He calls upon the earth to bring them forth. Furthermore the antecedent of the pronoun itself is the earth NOT grass, tree, or herb which are presented collectively and can not be represented by a singular pronoun. If this seed is already present in the dry land when it appears, then it seems reasonable that it is a vestige of a previous creation.
Whether you accept the ‘gap theory’ or cling to a more traditional view of creation; it is still the same God who made it all.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

{Return to: Lk 22:7 }

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide The day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(See note 1:7)

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

{Return to: Jer 31:35 }

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

{Return to: Lk 22:7 }

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Whether Gen 1:3-31 refers to original creation or re-creation; the use of ‘bara’ here signifies that sea life and birds were created from nothing on the fifth day of this creative epoch.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

See: Lk 1:25. {Return to: Jer 16:2 }

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

made Here the verb used is ‘asah’ just as in verse seven yet the use of ‘bara’ in verse 27 against ‘asah’ in this verse suggests that creation is intended here also. In fairness, one might question why we treat ‘asah’ differently here than in verse seven. The fact is that there is linguistically no compelling reason to do so; but there is no compelling reason not to. It comes down to a matter of preference. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

(See note 1:25) Let us consider in what way we are in the image of God. Certainly if I look in the mirror and say that I see God, that would be blasphemy or at least a grave misunderstanding. So the reference must not be to the physical image of God. What characteristics does man have in common with God? Intellect, will, and emotions are the characteristics we share with God. God reasons (Is 1:18), God decides
(2 Chr 25:16), God loves (Jn 3:16), becomes angry (Ex 4:14), and grieves (Ep 4:30). I believe that at creation, man’s intellect, will and emotions were aligned with God’s. The fall, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, disrupted the alignment; and the indwelling Holy Spirit (when we follow his leadership) restores it.
{Return to: Ge 5:1, Ge 5:3}

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Nothing has been said to this point about the creation of woman; so we have here a clear indication that Chapter Two is not a second creation narrative: but rather a more detailed account of the sixth day of this narrative. See note: Genesis 2:4.
{Return to: Ro 1:20, Ro 2:12 }

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

While there is certainly a commandment here to procreate, it does not necessarily follow that there is a mandate against contraception after the world was populated. I am not sure whether the Bible gives a specific command on this issue; and until one is convinced that it does, he is free to follow his own conscience. {Return to Is 4:1 }

(I have elected to use he or his to signify unspecified gender (following the old convention) This is not intended as a sleight against women; and I hope it will not be taken as such. I am generally quite sympathetic toward and in agreement with most of the goals of the women’s movement over the past 75 years; but, I am persuaded that the English language was more beautiful before we became overly concerned with political correctness.) 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

In 17th century English, it was common for meat to signify food of any sort. The same word was also used to signify animal flesh to be eaten (as it is used today). The only way to distinguish between the two usages is context, and context is not always clear. In such cases it becomes a matter of preference.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

There is a good case here for supposing that God originally intended us all to be vegetarians; and we are still at liberty to follow that lifestyle; but 1Tim 4:1-3 clearly warns against imposing any such restriction on another person. {Return to: Ge 9:3}

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I am aware that both Merrill F. Unger (Unger’s Bible Dictionary) and the McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia cite a similar gap theory. In any case I have come to the above ‘Gap Theory’ on my own. While I am aware of Unger’s, and McClintock and Strong’s citations, I have not relied on them and to the best of my knowledge my treatment of the subject is original.
 
G

GaryA

Guest
Koiak, I'll bite.

With the rate at which the universe is expanding (observable, calculated mathematically), and given calculations we have of its size presently, it is reasonable to assume it was once very small, as it is expanding. Calculating the rate it's expanding, we get the figures we have.

The theories of stars bursting, how the earth formed and the other planets, and the beginning of the universe is drawn from observing the same things elsewhere in space.

That's the best I can do from memory. The calculation is not some number pulled from the air.
Yet --- "God stretched out the heavens"...


Isaiah 42:

[SUP]5[/SUP] Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isaiah 45:

[SUP]12[/SUP] I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isaiah 51:

[SUP]13[/SUP] And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?

Jeremiah 10:

[SUP]12[/SUP] He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

Jeremiah 51:

[SUP]15[/SUP] He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.



How do we know that the "current" rate-of-expansion has always been constant?

:)
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
And how would I explain the First Adam? Well, since I take the Bible as inspired but not perfect, I would say that fell on Paul's limited understanding scientifically. But the message is still clear - Jesus is the Second Adam in that He shows what a perfect Man should look like. Now, I am notorious with loved ones and FB friends for getting hung up on details, and I am able to see understand Paul's point without it having to be literally true.

Isn't the point and lessons and teachings of the Bible far more important than being literally, word for word true?

See, here's the thing. One thing that I think really paints the AiG in the bad light it's in, is because many times Christians who feel there is strong evidence for it are lumped in with atheists, because it's an "atheist model." Honestly, for there to be a bridge of understanding made between these two camps, is that YEC need to drop this linking evolution with atheism.
You are the first person I have encountered in these forums who is mostly objective on the issues of which we speak.
 
May 3, 2015
87
1
0
And, the whole time this process is occuring, it is still:

~ an Ape
~ a Dog
~ a Bird
~ a Giraffe
~ a Human
etc.

That is 'micro' - not 'macro' - evolution... ;)

:)
The point being it's still evolution ....
 
May 3, 2015
87
1
0
Still waiting for somebody to agree that the world is 6000 years old lol,
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
I'm still waiting for YOUR response as I have utterly no use for Bowman and his Qur'an loving self.

Once again, you have a theological conundrum when you refuse to believe in the model of creation.

I have not set any dates, but I would say closer to now than any model of evolution predicts. As far as which OT manuscripts were quoted, once again, I will tell you. BOTH!


But why would I expect anything else from someone who appears to have no clue as to what is in the Bible, and is so intent on lying to people about the truth of creation so they might get saved? Saved from what, I ask you again? From millions of years of evolution??

Do you not see the ridiculousness of your theology?
Since you don't like Bowman, I'll go with jamie26301 then.

I agree with what she said about the First Adam.

I never said I don't believe in a creation model.

I do NOT believe in the YEC creation model with a 6,000-year-old worldview.

I have said very little about evolution, other than evolution is a fact and evolutionary theory deals with how and not what.

An evolution model is not what determines the age of the earth.

What exactly did I lie about?

My theology I would say closely resembles theistic evolution, a view held by many.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Still waiting for somebody to agree that the world is 6000 years old lol,
Trust me, they have said it plenty of times.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on what you said about Neanderthal DNA and the races.
 
May 3, 2015
87
1
0
Trust me, they have said it plenty of times.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on what you said about Neanderthal DNA and the races.
Oh I thought you would have researched that already.

Evolution happened for a certained race
And the other race is Gods people he put on the earth lol

What's to elaborate on ?