Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
- Thread starter JackH
- Start date
-
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.
A
They've been trying to catch Nessie since about 1933 according to Wikipedia. Maybe Nessie is actually an alien spaceship that shift changes to look like dinosaur. Hmmm, we better get Hovind on this when the gates to the prison finally swing open for him here shortly.
As for the Noah's Ark exhibit in Kentucky, I think that liberal news organ is using faulty logic. Instead of simply reporting the news, they put up a soapbox and preach their ideology. Certainly, it's entertaining but it often bedevils the knaves which comprise most of society at present further aggravating society's present problems.
Firstly, if they're going to accuse non-profit Christian organizations of investing in education instead of mitigating the various problems they believe need fixing then they themselves need to transform their for-profit liberal news corporation into a non-profit and use the profits to mitigate the very things they judge others for not doing or they're behaving hypocritically.
Secondly, they themselves are partly responsible for the problems they condemn others for not running around trying to clean up. These problems are the consequences of "progressive" liberal and neo-conservative policies and they are lock, stock, and barrel aligned with the "progressive" liberal worldview.
Thirdly, they are wrongly asserting that successfully preventing the problems from getting to such a material level in the first place is not a worthy endeavor. That, only running around spending money and effort to clean them up after is a worthy endeavor. That's illogical and nonsensical of them and reflects the faulty logic that runs like a thread thru their entire worldview. In fact, that makes them a stumbling block to organizations attempting to prevent (and not just clean up the consequences of) the problems (materially speaking to the degree they have already).
But, that's also a point. For to actually prevent problems requires a correct worldview firstly and effectively wielding it secondly.
Much more to say about this but I'm getting tired of typing so I think I'll go for a walk.
As for the Noah's Ark exhibit in Kentucky, I think that liberal news organ is using faulty logic. Instead of simply reporting the news, they put up a soapbox and preach their ideology. Certainly, it's entertaining but it often bedevils the knaves which comprise most of society at present further aggravating society's present problems.
Firstly, if they're going to accuse non-profit Christian organizations of investing in education instead of mitigating the various problems they believe need fixing then they themselves need to transform their for-profit liberal news corporation into a non-profit and use the profits to mitigate the very things they judge others for not doing or they're behaving hypocritically.
Secondly, they themselves are partly responsible for the problems they condemn others for not running around trying to clean up. These problems are the consequences of "progressive" liberal and neo-conservative policies and they are lock, stock, and barrel aligned with the "progressive" liberal worldview.
Thirdly, they are wrongly asserting that successfully preventing the problems from getting to such a material level in the first place is not a worthy endeavor. That, only running around spending money and effort to clean them up after is a worthy endeavor. That's illogical and nonsensical of them and reflects the faulty logic that runs like a thread thru their entire worldview. In fact, that makes them a stumbling block to organizations attempting to prevent (and not just clean up the consequences of) the problems (materially speaking to the degree they have already).
But, that's also a point. For to actually prevent problems requires a correct worldview firstly and effectively wielding it secondly.
Much more to say about this but I'm getting tired of typing so I think I'll go for a walk.
When Dr. Dino is out of the slammer and Ken Ham finishes building that $73 million life-sized Noah's Ark, they should take the ark for a sail in lake Loch Ness and not return until they capture Nessie.
Here is an interesting article on Ham's Ark:
5 Things Kentucky Could Spend $73 Million On Instead Of A Fake Noah's Ark
Here is an interesting article on Ham's Ark:
5 Things Kentucky Could Spend $73 Million On Instead Of A Fake Noah's Ark
A
No. The pic is an actual representation of his belief. Dr. Dino deviates from the standard YEC worldview in material ways. This is one of them.
In fact, I haven't heard of Dr. Dino before this thread, LOL, I have not a tip nor a clue what his style is. However, I would wager that this pic was intended more satirical than an actual representation of belief. Would that be correct?
R
Henry Morris is the person most responsible for making YEC the pseudoscientific cult that it is today. And who does Henry Morris credit for the "life-changing experience" that motivated him? Oh, a Seventh-Day Adventist, George McCready Price. And where did George McCready Price get much of his science?
R
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.
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.
and in response to your last paragraph...if jesus 'lacked understanding' and spoke from his lack of understanding...then he would have been lying or crazy when he said he only says what he hears from his father... there is just no way to legitimate the heretical notion that jesus was ignorant or mistaken about anything...
A
I'm back. And para-church organizations, such as creation organizations, exist to practically address specific issues. They are not "churches" in the sense of a local assembly or collection of local assemblies (commonly referred to as a "Church" or a "denomination") and it's ignorant and incorrect of Huffington to attempt to treat them as if they were.
AIG and Huffington are both non-churches from the standpoint of what constitutes a New Testament local assembly or collection of such and exist to accomplish a specific mission as per their respective mission statements.
If it's immoral and wrong for AIG to engage in education, rather than heroin addict recovery, than it's immoral and wrong for Huffington do likewise.
AIG and Huffington are both non-churches from the standpoint of what constitutes a New Testament local assembly or collection of such and exist to accomplish a specific mission as per their respective mission statements.
If it's immoral and wrong for AIG to engage in education, rather than heroin addict recovery, than it's immoral and wrong for Huffington do likewise.
I didn't want to cite Fox News.
R
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...
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...
It would be hypocrisy to believe in one and not the other...
science is -not- a collection of truth claims...it is not like a religion where truth claims are accepted or denied on an 'all or nothing' basis...
science is a -method for arriving at the truth- and for comparing and evaluating hypotheses in competition...rejecting any particular hypothesis is -not- a rejection of science...science actually -encourages- the rejection of hypotheses when the methods of science lead you to the conclusion that the hypothesis is untenable...
as an example...there are scientists who believe in the big bang but not the inflationary physics...there are also scientists who accept evolution but not dark matter...and so on...
so i believe in the newtonian physics that is more or less all that is needed to put a person on the moon...but the fact that i believe in that theory does not mandate that i accept any other theory...including the geological hypotheses of an old earth...
A
She plagiarized it from others and then lied about it as having come from her pretending that she learned it from God in her heretical visions.
But JackH's post is correct. Price certainly was influenced by White and Morris was influenced by Price. It's not an all or nothing proposition Rachel as you keep asserting.
Wikipedia gets this right citing Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0:
"Price's ideas were borrowed again in the early 1960s by Henry M. Morris and John Whitcomb in their book The Genesis Flood, a work that skeptic Martin Gardner calls "the most significant attack on evolution...since the Scopes trial". Morris, in his 1984 book History of Modern Creationism, spoke glowingly of Price's logic and writing style, and referred to reading The New Geology as "a life-changing experience for me".
Rachel, you are wrong.
But JackH's post is correct. Price certainly was influenced by White and Morris was influenced by Price. It's not an all or nothing proposition Rachel as you keep asserting.
Wikipedia gets this right citing Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0:
"Price's ideas were borrowed again in the early 1960s by Henry M. Morris and John Whitcomb in their book The Genesis Flood, a work that skeptic Martin Gardner calls "the most significant attack on evolution...since the Scopes trial". Morris, in his 1984 book History of Modern Creationism, spoke glowingly of Price's logic and writing style, and referred to reading The New Geology as "a life-changing experience for me".
Rachel, you are wrong.
and neither did ellen white...
A
Well what about the ones you didn't mention Rachel? There are plenty of those. In fact, theistic evolution (TE) advocates run the gambit under the umbrella of "the harmony between science and biblical faith in an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation."
I'm not a TE advocate but I know plenty who are and they spend almost as much time fighting with each other about TE as we do... lol.
I'm not a TE advocate but I know plenty who are and they spend almost as much time fighting with each other about TE as we do... lol.
well no matter what anyone thinks of the suggestion you make in your first paragraph and defend in most of the remainder of your post...this is -not- what the theistic evolutionists i mentioned are claiming...
R
How would God Himself interpret 'day age'?, how long is one of God's days?, how would anyone know?, also, God has no limitations no boundaries and can command full control of all natural laws. In some places on planet earth natural laws can change patterns.
Midnight sun
Midnight sun
the problem with lining up the genesis days and the long ages of secular geology and astronomy is not merely the length of the days...the -sequence- is also a problem...no amount of 'stretching' of the biblical days will make them fit the secular chronology because the secular chronology is in a different order...you cannot accept both the genesis 1 chronology and the secular chronology without either rearranging one sequence to conform it to the other or else rejecting both sequences and inventing your own...
really the only old earth creationist attempt at actually addressing this problem instead of simply ignoring it because of its logical near insurmountability is the framework interpretation...which basically denies that genesis 1 was ever intended to provide a sequence of events...and instead suggests that the text was intended to establish a non chronological thematic arrangement of topics...
A
Wrong. You're putting the cart before the horse here. A religion is true or false because it really is either true or false. Period.
All religions, including Christianity, have at one time or another possessed epistemological documents that humans authored and gathered together which were imperfect and contained false, even heretical, truth claims.
Christianity went through a five hundred year canonization process weeding out much heresy, non-canonical texts, and sorting through and making decisions about a wide range of competing truth claims.
During this process, there were periods where a point of orthodoxy almost entirely vanished in Christian doctrine and Christendom. For example, after Constantius II became emperor he replaced the Nicene Creed with an Arian Creed, replaced the pope with an Arian pope, and exiled all the bishops who were non-Arian. He then promoted Christianity across the Roman Empire as Arian. People were saved, born again, and became Christians all over the Roman Empire in sweeping numbers but under an Arian POV.
If you're assertion were true, Christianity would have needed to be "denied" to satisfy your "all or nothing basis" dependency long ago.
To finish the story, fortunately Constantius II died and the situation was completely reversed. The new Christians accepted the reversal from Arianism to Nicenism and continued in their new life as Christians.
All religions, including Christianity, have at one time or another possessed epistemological documents that humans authored and gathered together which were imperfect and contained false, even heretical, truth claims.
Christianity went through a five hundred year canonization process weeding out much heresy, non-canonical texts, and sorting through and making decisions about a wide range of competing truth claims.
During this process, there were periods where a point of orthodoxy almost entirely vanished in Christian doctrine and Christendom. For example, after Constantius II became emperor he replaced the Nicene Creed with an Arian Creed, replaced the pope with an Arian pope, and exiled all the bishops who were non-Arian. He then promoted Christianity across the Roman Empire as Arian. People were saved, born again, and became Christians all over the Roman Empire in sweeping numbers but under an Arian POV.
If you're assertion were true, Christianity would have needed to be "denied" to satisfy your "all or nothing basis" dependency long ago.
To finish the story, fortunately Constantius II died and the situation was completely reversed. The new Christians accepted the reversal from Arianism to Nicenism and continued in their new life as Christians.
this argument shows a serious misunderstanding of what science is...
science is -not- a collection of truth claims...it is not like a religion where truth claims are accepted or denied on an 'all or nothing' basis...
science is -not- a collection of truth claims...it is not like a religion where truth claims are accepted or denied on an 'all or nothing' basis...
R
You obfuscate and bluster without addressing the facts.
1. What is your scientific evidence that the earth is around 6,000 years old?
2. What is your scientific evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?
3. What is your scientific evidence that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago?
Please refer to evidence that is published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and the like.
1. What is your scientific evidence that the earth is around 6,000 years old?
2. What is your scientific evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?
3. What is your scientific evidence that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago?
Please refer to evidence that is published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals and the like.
anyway regarding your three questions...there are lots of different evidences to discuss so it makes more sense to present and debate one or two evidences at a time relating to each question instead of posting back and forth in exhausting and increasingly arcane dissertations...
1...polystrate fossils...which are single fossils that are buried across multiple strata...are evidence that the strata do not demarcate millions of years of time...if true then this would imply that the sedimentary geologic column spans significantly less than the hundreds of millions of years of phanerozoic and proterozoic time...
another evidence is the recovery of detectable amounts of carbon-14 in coals and even diamonds whose conventional dates range from anywhere between tens of millions of years to over a billion years...much longer than the time it takes for carbon-14 to decay far beyond detectable levels...
2...there is a lack of -direct- evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted...for example the claims of overlapping human and dinosaur trackways or 'out of place artifacts' that are always dubious or unverifiable... however one evidence that dinosaur fossils are significantly younger than the 65 million to 250 million year date conventionally assigned to mesozoic strata is the presence of intact soft tissue being discovered in a small but increasing number of dinosaur fossils...
3...a particularly intriguing evidence i have learned about supporting the idea of a global flood is the orthocone nautiloid fossils found in grand canyon strata...they are concentrated in a single relatively thin layer but distributed across a geographical area of possibly hundreds of miles... the nautiloid shells are preferentially pointed in a particular direction which suggests that they were influenced by a widespread current...however roughly one in seven of the nautiloids are found pointing downwards...implying that their burial was rapid enough that they were entombed in place before the current was able to push many of them over... these characteristics suggest an underwater 'mass kill' of huge numbers of nautiloids...the type of thing you would expect from noah's flood...
however to go a little further...the fact is that the entire sedimentary geologic column can be interpreted in a flood geology framework...and if it can be accounted for by flood geology then the -entire thing- can be argued to constitute supporting evidence for noah's flood... this should not really be surprising even to an old earth theorist...in science it is normal for competing theories to account for the same evidence in different ways...
A
Absolutely false.
Old earth creationists hold to a view that posits long but finite yoms rather than 24 hour yoms. The sequence IS the same. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science noting that from ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.
Old earth creationists are NOT changing the order of the days to make them fit with a naturalist view. That's a false assertion. You apparently don't understand the views properly. I recommend you visit repositories where they are defined, such as the Archives & Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church and learn what they actually are (PCA Historical Center: Search Results).
Old earth creationists hold to a view that posits long but finite yoms rather than 24 hour yoms. The sequence IS the same. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science noting that from ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.
Old earth creationists are NOT changing the order of the days to make them fit with a naturalist view. That's a false assertion. You apparently don't understand the views properly. I recommend you visit repositories where they are defined, such as the Archives & Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church and learn what they actually are (PCA Historical Center: Search Results).
the problem with lining up the genesis days and the long ages of secular geology and astronomy is not merely the length of the days...the -sequence- is also a problem...no amount of 'stretching' of the biblical days will make them fit the secular chronology because the secular chronology is in a different order...you cannot accept both the genesis 1 chronology and the secular chronology without either rearranging one sequence to conform it to the other or else rejecting both sequences and inventing your own...
R
She plagiarized it from others and then lied about it as having come from her pretending that she learned it from God in her heretical visions.
But JackH's post is correct. Price certainly was influenced by White and Morris was influenced by Price. It's not an all or nothing proposition Rachel as you keep asserting.
Wikipedia gets this right citing Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0:
"Price's ideas were borrowed again in the early 1960s by Henry M. Morris and John Whitcomb in their book The Genesis Flood, a work that skeptic Martin Gardner calls "the most significant attack on evolution...since the Scopes trial". Morris, in his 1984 book History of Modern Creationism, spoke glowingly of Price's logic and writing style, and referred to reading The New Geology as "a life-changing experience for me".
Rachel, you are wrong.
But JackH's post is correct. Price certainly was influenced by White and Morris was influenced by Price. It's not an all or nothing proposition Rachel as you keep asserting.
Wikipedia gets this right citing Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0:
"Price's ideas were borrowed again in the early 1960s by Henry M. Morris and John Whitcomb in their book The Genesis Flood, a work that skeptic Martin Gardner calls "the most significant attack on evolution...since the Scopes trial". Morris, in his 1984 book History of Modern Creationism, spoke glowingly of Price's logic and writing style, and referred to reading The New Geology as "a life-changing experience for me".
Rachel, you are wrong.
R
Well what about the ones you didn't mention Rachel? There are plenty of those. In fact, theistic evolution (TE) advocates run the gambit under the umbrella of "the harmony between science and biblical faith in an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation."
I'm not a TE advocate but I know plenty who are and they spend almost as much time fighting with each other about TE as we do... lol.
I'm not a TE advocate but I know plenty who are and they spend almost as much time fighting with each other about TE as we do... lol.
R
Absolutely false.
Old earth creationists hold to a view that posits long but finite yoms rather than 24 hour yoms. The sequence IS the same. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science noting that from ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.
Old earth creationists are NOT changing the order of the days to make them fit with a naturalist view. That's a false assertion. You apparently don't understand the views properly. I recommend you visit repositories where they are defined, such as the Archives & Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church and learn what they actually are (PCA Historical Center: Search Results).
Old earth creationists hold to a view that posits long but finite yoms rather than 24 hour yoms. The sequence IS the same. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science noting that from ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.
Old earth creationists are NOT changing the order of the days to make them fit with a naturalist view. That's a false assertion. You apparently don't understand the views properly. I recommend you visit repositories where they are defined, such as the Archives & Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church and learn what they actually are (PCA Historical Center: Search Results).
and moreover some old earth creationists actually -have- rearranged or 'dechronologized' the genesis 1 text...namely those who hold to the framework interpretation...which unlike the day age theory actually -can- account for the geologic sequence...
A
Biologos, all by itself, has about a million email subscribers now and I've talked to TE advocates that align with Jaimie's #679 post. They're are all kinds of TE advocates. They're the most diverse group in the room.
the ones i didn't mention who are not involved in this heresy have managed to stay out of it mainly by just ignoring the issue...it should be telling that the primary way of actually addressing the issue is heretical...
A
Day-age view advocates have already published the known geological sequence, column, and record fully integrated into their scientifically testable model.
Additionally, they state the data from the geological, geochemical, and fossil records all place impossible constraints on naturalistic scenarios and that life arose rapidly and early in Earth's history as soon as Earth could possibly support it.
Additionally, they state the data from the geological, geochemical, and fossil records all place impossible constraints on naturalistic scenarios and that life arose rapidly and early in Earth's history as soon as Earth could possibly support it.
again you have missed the plot...i did -not- say that day age theorists have rearranged the sequence...in fact my argument is that this is -exactly why- the day age theory is not credible...the day age theory is untenable -because- it tries to keep the sequence intact while simply lengthening the days...they end up with something that is less parsimonious exegetically while still being unable to incorporate the known geologic sequence...