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

[kodiak]

i guess the hovindists have pretty much all given up...but their 'contributions' were useless anyway...mainly because they don't know what they are talking about and can't recognize when other people don't know what they are talking about either...

maybe i will try to add some things to the debate...but if it becomes too predictable i will probably quit out of sheer boredom...

so regarding this assertion that young earth creationism and flood geology virtually originated in seventh day adventist circles...this is patently false...

although morris was influenced by price...young earth creationism and flood geology actually predated price by a wide margin...

for example...a century before price came along george fairholme was advocating for flood geology...a century before that johann lehmann was interpreting strata within the framework of a global flood...

and yet another several decades prior to that john woodward proposed a theory of rock strata and fossil sequences that was virtually identical to those of price and morris many years later...

going even further back you have martin luther and early church fathers like augustine and chrysostom attributing fossils to the biblical flood...

all price did that was actually -new- was to attempt to link already existing notions of flood geology and seventh day adventism into a coherent apologetic...

in any case...as inaccurate as it is...your argument is also a fairly obvious fallacy...namely the ad hominem fallacy of guilt by association... as an example of how it is invalid reasoning someone could point out that darwin viewed some races as superior or inferior and then argue that modern day evolutionists are the intellectual heirs of the nineteenth century racists and eugenics advocates...

You may not want to get into this. Your posts will be twisted and you will also be accused of not knowing what you are talking about. There is a difference between recognizing when people don't understand what they are talking about and being able to handle people who refuse to read what you are actually saying.

I respectively disagree with the old earth believers, but it is their choice to believe it. It is also our choice to believe in a young earth. We have our presuppositions and opinions and arguing/debating as we have shown is not going to change the other's minds....
I believe the earth was created in full maturity so it could be fully functional. The similar happened when Jesus turned Water into wine.
John 2: 9-10 "When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'” The good wine was the aged wine... It was created from water with the appearance of age, because it wasn't actually aged wine....Trees were created with the appearance of age, they had rings already on them because it served a purpose. The same as stars could be seen extremely far away instantly. The light should have taken years to reach the earth, but God created the light between the stars and the earth too.

The age of the earth does not matter to Salvation. It requires trust in Jesus. I don't think those who hold any specific view of the age of the earth as stupid, there is evidence for both sides. I don't appreciate being called stupid for believing the earth is young, and I am sure the old earth believers would not like being called stupid for believing in an old earth. Attacking people and questioning their credibility does not dismiss truth. Truth is objective and truth regardless if the people who believe it are not correct on any other topic. I am not going to join in on the attacking of people and arguing is not going to help, so I am not going to argue. This is going to be my last post in this thread. Have a good day and God bless.

 

[Bowman]

The age of the earth does not matter to Salvation.

I disagree, completely.

I have personally witnessed untold numbers of Muslims (and others) reject Christianity on the basis of a young-earth world-view, alone.

First impressions and stereotypes are just as crucial in religion as they are in other areas of our lives.

If the first thing encountered in Christianity is a 50/50 clash on how old the world is...well, how can seekers believe anything that Christian's have to say regarding the non-physical Bible claims?

I predict that this present state of crisis to be of the temporal order. Within a few generations, with ever increasing scientific discoveries, the dominant Christian world view will overwhelmingly be old earth/older Universe...and YEC will be relegated to that of the Flat Earth Society...laughable, but still attracting the lunatic fringe adherents...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes, well people on both sides of the discussion are engaging in that behavior.

I; however, will continue to accurately present the truth (to the best of my understanding) even when people do not recognize it, demonstrate that they can't handle it, and/or simply disagree with it.

I prefer the latter because at least one can have a rational discussion with them without them personally vilifying everyone and everything they disagree with.

Your posts will be twisted and you will also be accused of not knowing what you are talking about. There is a difference between recognizing when people don't understand what they are talking about and being able to handle people who refuse to read what you are actually saying.

 

[JackH]

So you haven't heard of the pyramid found that dates back to the time of the dinosaurs? It was reported in a big newspaper in another Country. They say it was built by humans.....do you think the dinosaurs built it?

You throw crap against the wall like this to see if it will stick and then you wonder why you get called on your BS.

So, you made a point of saying you were leaving this thread three times before (before your post #661).

Please spare me the drama queen moments. When one leaves, another one will show up.

 

[JackH]

here is how i would rank the various schools...from most credible to least credible...

young earth creationism
intelligent design
atheistic evolutionism
gap theory
progressive creationism
day age theory
theistic evolutionism

I'm holding my breath here waiting for the "proof" that Young Earth Creationism is the most credible school.

No doubt you will soon "prove" that the earth is around 6,000 years old, humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and there is overwhelming scientific evidence of a global flood.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Great post. Personally, I would have no problem switching over to YEC or TE if I honestly believed the aggregate of evidence supported one of those positions above all others. But that's just not the case, at this point based, in my understanding up to this point.

But I have no personal enmity against any of the standard creation positions or anyone who holds them. I simply align with the one I believe is the best fit, overall, at this juncture based on a careful analysis of the aggregate of the evidence with the understanding that I must carefully examine all new evidence. For me, it's really just that simple.

You do bring up a great point; however, about how creationist fighting negative affects the evangelistic enterprise.

Most Muslims I've met do take an old earth view. When they're confronted by militant YEC advocates who insist that they accept that the earth is six thousand years old or they are rejecting God's Word (e.g. the Bible which contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ), they feel they're being put into a position where they have to reject the Bible (which contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ) in order to maintain their integrity because they honestly do not accept a six thousand year old earth as correct.

Yeah, that's a problem.

I disagree, completely.

I have personally witnessed untold numbers of Muslims (and others) reject Christianity on the basis of a young-earth world-view, alone.

First impressions and stereotypes are just as crucial in religion as they are in other areas of our lives.

If the first thing encountered in Christianity is a 50/50 clash on how old the world is...well, how can seekers believe anything that Christian's have to say regarding the non-physical Bible claims?

I predict that this present state of crisis to be of the temporal order. Within a few generations, with ever increasing scientific discoveries, the dominant Christian world view will overwhelmingly be old earth/older Universe...and YEC will be relegated to that of the Flat Earth Society...laughable, but still attracting the lunatic fringe adherents...

 

[JackH]

here is how i would rank the various schools...from most credible to least credible...

young earth creationism
intelligent design
atheistic evolutionism
gap theory
progressive creationism
day age theory
theistic evolutionism

So you rank atheistic evolution ahead of various Christian schools?

I seriously would like to know how you make that pig (your list) fly.

Please do tell.

 

[Bowman]

False. Old earth/progressive creationism has a long and well documented history that extends into antiquity just as YEC does.

No new creation mythology was invented. Rather, scientifically testable creation models were developed by theologians, philosophers, scientists, researchers, and academians (who were and are genuine Christians that signed statements of faith adhering to the orthodox essentials of the Christian worldview) upon the creation viewpoint to test whether or not the viewpoint was, in fact, true or not.

It's unhelpful Rachel to make such patently false assertions while demonstrating such animus [emphasis added] against genuine Christian theologians, philosophers, scientists, researchers, and academians (whom include people such as Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, John Gresham Machen, William G.T. Shedd, Benjamin B. Warfield, Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, James Montgomery Boice, Francis Schaeffer, R.A. Torrey, Edward J. Young, John Ankerberg, Bill Bright, C. John Collins, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Hank Hannegraff, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, J.P. Moreland, J.I. Packer, Nancy Pearcey, Vern Poythress, Earl Radmacher, Lee Strobel, Dallas Willard, etc... just as a sampling and without delving into antiquity) whom don't adhere to your own viewpoint that the earth is six thousand years old, that's what the bible teaches, that's what every church father taught, and anyone who disagrees lacks integrity and fabricating newfangled mythologies that contradict both.

That's just pure unadulterated ignorance and animus on your part.

Very well written...thanks for this...

 

[Bowman]

Great post. Personally, I would have no problem switching over to YEC or TE if I honestly believed the aggregate of evidence supported one of those positions above all others. But that's just not the case, at this point based, in my understanding up to this point.

But I have no personal enmity against any of the standard creation positions or anyone who holds them. I simply align with the one I believe is the best fit, overall, at this juncture based on a careful analysis of the aggregate of the evidence with the understanding that I must carefully examine all new evidence. For me, it's really just that simple.

You do bring up a great point; however, about how creationist fighting negative affects the evangelistic enterprise.

Most Muslims I've met do take an old earth view. When they're confronted by militant YEC advocates who insist that they accept that the earth is six thousand years old or they are rejecting God's Word (e.g. the Bible which contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ), they feel they're being put into a position where they have to reject the Bible (which contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ) in order to maintain their integrity because they honestly do not accept a six thousand year old earth as correct.

Yeah, that's a problem.

Agreed!

One such worst-case scenario occurred with a Muslim colleague of mine, whose parents were rich enough to have him schooled in a private Catholic school in India. After several years there, he came away as an adult Muslim believing that all Christians believe in a 6K year old earth and not only that but they believe in THREE Gods!

I mean really...is the Catholic church so inept as to make The Trinity appear as three separate gods?

The answer is...YES!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're welcome. Be sure to take note that I like Rachel and agree with a great deal of what she has to say recognizing her intelligence, sophisticated understanding of Christian theology, and that she is a genuine Christian.

My comments were to something said, not the person.

Very well written...thanks for this...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

False. Old earth/progressive creationism has a long and well documented history that extends into antiquity just as YEC does.

No new creation mythology was invented. Rather, scientifically testable creation models were developed by theologians, philosophers, scientists, researchers, and academians (who were and are genuine Christians that signed statements of faith adhering to the orthodox essentials of the Christian worldview) upon the creation viewpoint to test whether or not the viewpoint was, in fact, true or not.

It's unhelpful Rachel to make such patently false assertions while demonstrating such animus [emphasis added] against genuine Christian theologians, philosophers, scientists, researchers, and academians (whom include people such as Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, John Gresham Machen, William G.T. Shedd, Benjamin B. Warfield, Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, James Montgomery Boice, Francis Schaeffer, R.A. Torrey, Edward J. Young, John Ankerberg, Bill Bright, C. John Collins, Chuck Colson, Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Hank Hannegraff, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, J.P. Moreland, J.I. Packer, Nancy Pearcey, Vern Poythress, Earl Radmacher, Lee Strobel, Dallas Willard, etc... just as a sampling and without delving into antiquity) whom don't adhere to your own viewpoint that the earth is six thousand years old, that's what the bible teaches, that's what every church father taught, and anyone who disagrees lacks integrity and fabricating newfangled mythologies that contradict both.

That's just pure unadulterated ignorance and animus on your part.

well first of all...i said old earth creationists -usually- invent new creation mythologies...i didn't say 'always'...so any of the people you listed -might- not have fallen into the intellectual indignities that old earth creationism commonly requires...

with that said...your exercise in 'name dropping' is a fallacy in itself...either an appeal to authority or an appeal to numbers or an appeal to pity depending on what you were trying to prove...which isn't entirely clear... to see why this is a fallacy...i could just as easily make an equally long list of eminent christian authorities who believed that the sun revolved around the earth... if an idea is invalid it doesn't matter -who- believes it...and simply stating that someone holds to an invalid idea is -not- impugning their character...

moving on to your other contentions...it is true that old earth creationism has a long history...it especially experienced a surge in popularity during the enlightenment... however in the case of old earth creationism this long history only serves to make its notions generally quite dated...as the years have gone by old earth creationism has become a more and more untenable approach to both science and scripture...

a perfect example of this is the 'day age interpretation'...at one time the sparseness of geological data did make it possible for a scientifically informed christian to claim that all that was necessary to accommodate genesis 1 to the prevailing geological opinions on the age of the earth was to 'stretch out' the chronology... this was the approach taken for example by jamieson and faussett and brown in their bible commentary...which -at that time- was a well reasoned and plausible model...

of course the geological and paleontological discoveries of the intervening years have effectively demolished the plausibility of this day age interpretation...because it has become clear that genesis 1 and the geologic record do not present the same -sequence- of events...so it is not sufficient just to stretch out the days of genesis 1 into long ages...

this is not an isolated case...it is the story of old earth creationist models in general...since most old earth creationist models attach themselves in varying degrees and with near dogmatic insistence to whatever the prevailing secular origins models may be on an -as is- basis...they suffer greatly when new facts produce a change in those prevailing secular views...

nor is this a thing of the past...as recently as the last decade hugh ross of reasons to believe hitched his creation model to a certain viewpoint on the humanness of neanderthals...which he viewed as soulless animals possessing only humanoid form and abilities... unfortunately for ross his ideas about neanderthals have been refuted in leaps and bounds by new data...it is now known that neanderthals possessed the 'symbolic capability' that ross denied them...and ross and his cohorts appear to be some of the few 'scientists' left who deny that neanderthals interbred with modern type humans...even the young earth creationists have accepted that new discovery with eagerness because it was a testable prediction of -their- creation model...but ross' model simply cannot accommodate this new data because he has tied the theological aspect of his model to a prior state of a shifting field of science...

anyway to move on to your one other contention...old earth creationists certainly -have- invented new mythologies that contradict both the scripture and the secular science they are supposed to reconcile... a perfect example is the 'gap theory'...which claims that there was a time gap between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 in which a 'pre adamic world' ruled by lucifer existed and then 'became' formless and desolate when satan fell... of course it is a major stretch to obtain this from scripture and it requires a great deal of dubious exegesis of passages from which 'gap' interpretations do not readily follow...so it is absolutely fair to call this a 'new mythology'... similarly no current scientific view of the earth includes anything like the -100% extinction event- that is required by the gap theory...so it is absolutely fair to argue that this new mythology also contradicts the very science it was supposed to reconcile with scripture...

a more nuanced instance of old earth creationism as 'new mythology' is found in some models of progressive creationism... for example at some point in hugh ross' slick presentation of his progressive creation model you might simply step back and ask yourself...'is any of this actually derived from scripture?'...and the answer will be an obvious 'no!'... no credible hermeneutic could derive from genesis 1 anything like ross' scenario of continual extinctions of species and then new divine creations of similar but slightly more -ahem- 'evolved' species to replace them...right up to ross' already discredited neanderthal 'pre humans' who were supposedly replaced with modern humans made in the image of God...the text simply doesn't even -hint- at -any- of that... and so it quickly becomes clear that ross' model is -not- a real attempt at exegeting the genesis 1 text...but actually an attempt at 'exegesis' of the geologic record in his '67th book of the bible' in order to create a kind of 'God of the artificial gaps' scenario that is basically the orthodox evolutionist sequence only without the evolution...

finally as ross' model is essentially just an imitation of the orthodox evolutionist sequence that merely replaces evolutionary speciation with divine creation...it is not really an especially testable model...at least not in the sense that any test could conceivably distinguish it from the evolutionary model...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I disagree, completely.

I have personally witnessed untold numbers of Muslims (and others) reject Christianity on the basis of a young-earth world-view, alone.

First impressions and stereotypes are just as crucial in religion as they are in other areas of our lives.

If the first thing encountered in Christianity is a 50/50 clash on how old the world is...well, how can seekers believe anything that Christian's have to say regarding the non-physical Bible claims?

I predict that this present state of crisis to be of the temporal order. Within a few generations, with ever increasing scientific discoveries, the dominant Christian world view will overwhelmingly be old earth/older Universe...and YEC will be relegated to that of the Flat Earth Society...laughable, but still attracting the lunatic fringe adherents...

examples could also be given of the opposite...that is people rejecting christianity because they don't view the bible as trustworthy in the light of the 'evidence' of an old earth...which they are too insistent on intellectual consistency to attempt to 'harmonize' with scripture through the exegetical gymnastics of old earth creationism...

when christians don't appear to believe what they say they believe...namely the reliability and sufficiency of scripture...many people are naturally turned off by the cognitive dissonance...

there are also many examples of young earth creation teaching restoring people's faith in the gospel...and of young earth teaching being especially useful in foreign mission work...

maybe we can agree that the sinful human nature will latch onto -any- 'excuse' to reject christ...and that both sides of the origins debate can sometimes provide such an excuse depending on where the person is coming from intellectually and philosophically...

finally i should add that predictions similar to the one in your last paragraph were made 200 years ago...but young earth creationists are still around and arguably a stronger force than they were when the prediction was made...

 

[Tintin]

An excellent and in-depth refutation of Hugh Ross' bull...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I'm holding my breath here waiting for the "proof" that Young Earth Creationism is the most credible school.

No doubt you will soon "prove" that the earth is around 6,000 years old, humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and there is overwhelming scientific evidence of a global flood.

anyone who understands science knows that you don't 'prove' anything in science...what you do is show that a particular model is consistent with the available evidence...which then makes it a credible model for consideration...it is a bonus if you can show that your model fits -more- evidence in a more parsimonious way than other models...

either you don't really understand science particularly well or you have hypocritically decided to take an unscientific angle of attack in this discussion...judging from your previous posts and my prior experience with online self appointed champions of evolutionism it could be either one...or a combination of both...

in any case proving something exegetically from scripture is a different story...if you are looking for scriptural proofs then let me know...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

So you rank atheistic evolution ahead of various Christian schools?

yes i do...you can see my criticisms of gap theory and progressive creationism and day age theory in one of my earlier posts...

while i don't agree with atheistic evolutionism...at least it superficially accounts for the data it claims to explain...i can't say the same thing for the old earth creationist theories which as i have argued tend to try to have it both ways yet end up having it neither way...

i place theistic evolutionism at the very bottom for a different reason...it would actually be much more credible than any of the non evolutionary old earth creationist theories except for the fact that a number of its proponents have backed themselves into the theologically untenable and arguably heretical corner of claiming that jesus might have been mistaken or ignorant about the history of creation...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You're welcome. Be sure to take note that I like Rachel and agree with a great deal of what she has to say recognizing her intelligence, sophisticated understanding of Christian theology, and that she is a genuine Christian.

My comments were to something said, not the person.

i can say likewise

 

[Bowman]

examples could also be given of the opposite...that is people rejecting christianity because they don't view the bible as trustworthy in the light of the 'evidence' of an old earth...which they are too insistent on intellectual consistency to attempt to 'harmonize' with scripture through the exegetical gymnastics of old earth creationism...

when christians don't appear to believe what they say they believe...namely the reliability and sufficiency of scripture...many people are naturally turned off by the cognitive dissonance...

there are also many examples of young earth creation teaching restoring people's faith in the gospel...and of young earth teaching being especially useful in foreign mission work...

maybe we can agree that the sinful human nature will latch onto -any- 'excuse' to reject christ...and that both sides of the origins debate can sometimes provide such an excuse depending on where the person is coming from intellectually and philosophically...

I have been around a very long time, and have never encountered this....perhaps you could show me some valid evidence regarding the types of people that happen to fall into this category...

finally i should add that predictions similar to the one in your last paragraph were made 200 years ago...but young earth creationists are still around and arguably a stronger force than they were when the prediction was made...

'200 years ago' no one knew that the Universe was billions of years ago like we do today.

Perhaps a better example would have been that thousands of years ago, there was the thought that the Universe was eternal - which is also wrong, just like the 6K figure.

Eternal is too long.

6K is too short.

Billions of years is in between the two extremist lines of thought, and can be demonstrated to be the correct line of reasoning.


If you believe the science that placed a man on the moon, then you have no choice but to believe that this same science states that the Universe is Billions of years old.

It would be hypocrisy to believe in one and not the other...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I would love to refute the many false assertions you just made Rachel but I have to be somewhere early tomorrow morning so have to sign off for now. My alarm clock has more power over my life than I would like... lolol.

Tintin, that book you recommended from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati can be had on Amazon for $0.01 plus shipping. I just ordered it given the exceptionally high reviews YEC advocates are assigning to it (not to mention the wonderful price).

Whether or not Dr. Sarfati's arguments qualify as valid or faulty (in my view), I know I'll become more proficient in the YEC viewpoint from reading that particular book.

 

[jamie26301]

i place theistic evolutionism at the very bottom for a different reason...it would actually be much more credible than any of the non evolutionary old earth creationist theories except for the fact that a number of its proponents have backed themselves into the theologically untenable and arguably heretical corner of claiming that jesus might have been mistaken or ignorant about the history of creation...

Is it possible that we just don't know the full and complete context of His quoting Genesis? Remember these accounts were recorded from memory, years later. It's possible He touched on something about Genesis they didn't remember or didn't think was relevant to their testimony - or hardly at all, beyond what He quoted. And of what we do have, it doesn't appear Jesus was concerned so much about all the details lining up (when He quoted Scripture) as He was about people understanding broad concepts of loving God and their neighbor.

For example, He never spelled out being fully God and fully man, from what we have... but we fight about it? Would He want us to quarrel over something that would appear He made no great issue of Himself? And there would be many other such doctrines that divides us, that even the Gospel writers didn't think was so important to record or speculate on.

Also remember that it seems clear that the Gospels don't read like a filmstrip, but snapshots through His three years of ministry. We have a similar picture of Jesus and His ministry, of eyewitnesses, as we do with the whole Israelite history. There is a lot of things we don't know, that if in reality was true would contradict what we drew from the limited information available. So, I think it's dangerous to let such things divide us, when we could be dividing ourselves over what is objectively false in the name of the truth we decided. And I mention the division because the falling from faith was mentioned - sometimes I think people fall from faith because of the divisions themselves, rather than lack of understanding.

To my knowledge, we don't have accounts of Jesus laying out Scripture as a theologian would today, verse by verse or cross referencing as a commentary. He pulled a quote here and there. And pulling a quote to make a point doesn't make it any more literal than using a cliche/anecdote makes a point. We simply don't have enough commentary of His on Genesis to draw that dogmatically, imo.

And WHAT IF He lacked understanding? Does that invalidate His wisdom, His love, compassion? Very early in my walk, I asked a pastor "If Jesus had a wife, was not a virgin, would that have marred His sacrifice? "In my 30 years of ministry, no one has ever asked me that before." Could a limited scientific understanding reflect His TRULY emptying Himself and humbling Himself to the humanity of the time? And again, does it matter? If He meant it literally, and wrong, you seriously think that puts a dent in the love He showed for us? LOVE covers a multitude of sins... not knowledge.

 

[kedge]

This is simply not true.

But it is simply not false either.

What's up with this "absolute" business?

There is no absolute certainty of the age of unrecorded history, prehistoric history is largely based upon assumptions, guess work, opinions.

In the 1950's, real scientists said the Earth was around 2 billion years old.

They assumed billions of years, greater ages are still assumed today.

Now real scientists say it's older.

What's a real scientists?, the word science comes from the latin scientia meaning knowledge, so what does any human being know about pre-historic timescales or life with any measure of accuracy?

Fifty years from now real scientists will probably say it's even older.

One second ago is history/older.

But I doubt real scientists will say the Earth is around 6,000 years old.

From what i gather the general consensus is that planet earth is old and no human being with any measure of intelligence could deny, but how old is still unknown, one can only assume the age based on mans word, and there is conflicting radiocarbon dating from different scientists.

I go with what the vast majority of real scientists say at any given time.

You mean you will only follow the evolutionary secular scientific worldview?, It's your choice your free will, but what is a real scientist?