Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 12:40 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 12:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Catholic Church supports its version of evolution, not the scientific theory.

I don't know about that Chas, it's more like they see no conflict between evolution and the bible. (the average catholic, not the whole whacky group). They don't think a day is a literal day but one that could last a billion years. And each "day" doesn't even have to be same length of time.

Exactly, and THAT is their version. Smartass

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
In a conversation a couple of years ago with an acquaintance who thought that Moses was "inspired by God" to write the stories in Genesis, I asked this simple question:

Okay, assuming for a moment that you're right, and the story in Genesis 1 is "inspired by God", let's take a minute to think about what that would mean. God comes down and shows a "movie" to Moses about everything we know today in science: he sees the Big Bang, he sees the galactic nebulae, then stars forming. He sees a time-lapse video of the formation of our solar system and planet. He sees the chemicals forming into life on the early earth. He sees bacteria arise and change over the first three billion years of life on earth, finally leading to more-complex creatures, and then he watches the rise of ever more complex life until finally he sees mankind emerge. All that is shown to Moses.

How can he possibly understand what he saw, and more importantly, how could he phrase that in Bronze-Age language in a way that people could understand? Even if I accept your premise that God told Moses the actual story of how the world came to be the way it was, and then wrote Genesis, the resulting language would not be different because it had to come through the filter of the understanding-level of the people at the time. To use that level of understanding (formed into the creation-story mythology in Genesis) as a basis for modern science, or to hold on to that level of understanding in light of the new discoveries in science, would be laughable if most people didn't have such an emotional attachment to the story. Believers who are scientists (or who accept science) understand that it is a mythological "how we came to be here" story for the people at that time in history, and don't have an issue with updating it with our new level of understanding of how the universe works.

In other words, science is not in conflict with religion, it is only in conflict with those who have an emotional attachment to a literal reading of Genesis as a "science textbook".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
23-08-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 09:16 AM)Aliza Wrote:  As a theist, my position is simple. Mankind was made to interact with a physical world, so the physical evidence that we see around us must have some relevance. This idea is firmly rooted in my religious education.

Well, there's your problem.

Starting with an a priori conclusion and a very strong bias will lead you to looking for the answers that you want, and bending what evidence you think you have to conform to your desired outcome.

It is anything but the unbiased, objective evaluation of evidence that science strives for; and because of that, it's useless as a method for finding the truth about anything.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-08-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 01:27 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  In a conversation a couple of years ago with an acquaintance who thought that Moses was "inspired by God" to write the stories in Genesis, I asked this simple question:

Okay, assuming for a moment that you're right, and the story in Genesis 1 is "inspired by God", let's take a minute to think about what that would mean. God comes down and shows a "movie" to Moses about everything we know today in science: he sees the Big Bang, he sees the galactic nebulae, then stars forming. He sees a time-lapse video of the formation of our solar system and planet. He sees the chemicals forming into life on the early earth. He sees bacteria arise and change over the first three billion years of life on earth, finally leading to more-complex creatures, and then he watches the rise of ever more complex life until finally he sees mankind emerge. All that is shown to Moses.

How can he possibly understand what he saw, and more importantly, how could he phrase that in Bronze-Age language in a way that people could understand? Even if I accept your premise that God told Moses the actual story of how the world came to be the way it was, and then wrote Genesis, the resulting language would not be different because it had to come through the filter of the understanding-level of the people at the time. To use that level of understanding (formed into the creation-story mythology in Genesis) as a basis for modern science, or to hold on to that level of understanding in light of the new discoveries in science, would be laughable if most people didn't have such an emotional attachment to the story. Believers who are scientists (or who accept science) understand that it is a mythological "how we came to be here" story for the people at that time in history, and don't have an issue with updating it with our new level of understanding of how the universe works.

In other words, science is not in conflict with religion, it is only in conflict with those who have an emotional attachment to a literal reading of Genesis as a "science textbook".

A retelling of the creation story in Genesis, using simple language available at the time, to accurately describe the formation of the universe and life on our planet.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-08-2015, 01:45 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
Eish... who cares, long as ye olde scientific methode is observed and the proper rituals are carried out? She can be a member of our cult Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
23-08-2015, 01:49 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 12:57 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As for the Hovind family, they are charlatans of the worst sort. That whole video is laughable and in direct conflict with what we do know about science, even stuff that a highschool student could prove wrong. (Which is, by the way, what caused me to give up religion, after being lied to by someone from Hovind's organization when they came to preach at my church and my teenage self said, "WTF?!")

That's one of the things that made me start questioning too. My dad teaches a creationism class at his church and actually owns Kent Hovind's video series. Blush

Anyway, he told me that the reason we can see light from distant stars that scientists claim wouldn't have reached us if the universe wasn't billions of years old was because God created it in transit. I didn't know what an ad hoc explanation was at the time, but I knew that wasn't in the Bible and sounded suspiciously like a made up answer to magic away a problem.

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
23-08-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 10:44 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 10:16 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Even if I'm practicing my own religion, I'd still be a theist.

Maybe you can give me something specific for me to try to address? Let's just start with one, and I'll see if I'm able to provide some information on it.

Oh, I am not questioning you being a theist, I just found it strange that somebody can reconcile two, in my opinion irreconcilable things.

Jenny's example will work just fine. I hope that you don't need me to go to a specific lines in the story of creation? But if you do , how about Earth existing before the sun does. How can there even be "day one, two..." before there is sun?

So in short, science says that Sun is (billions of years) older then the Earth and your religion claims the opposite.

What of the two claims you hold to be the truth?

Disclaimer: Just for the record, I didn't come to an atheist forum to spout my religious doctrine. This is not an unsolicited request for my viewpoint.

The Christian people reject the Talmud for a variety of reasons… but maybe if they had it, they wouldn’t be so opposed to the idea of evolution. And before I continue, I want to clarify that there ARE Jews out there who absolutely are convinced that evolution is bogus. That’s their problem. I'm giving you a very brief explanation of how I feel that I can be both a Jew and an aspiring scientist. I have to watch myself or I'll give you a 10 page "summary" of the Jewish position on the first sentence of Genesis. So if this isn't detailed enough for you, you're welcome to PM and I'll try to be more specific.

VERY BRIEFLY:

The Hebrew calendar begins after the creation of Adam. When Christians insist that the world is 6,000 years old, they’re forgetting that they stole our bible from us and mistranslated it, and refused to consider our Talmud, which is an essential companion to the scripture. Your idea that the religious community uniformly believes that the universe was created 6,000 (or more specifically 5775) years ago is really exclusively a Christian one. ALL learned Jews, regardless of their denomination or their position on evolution, agree that the creation of the universe, earth and mankind occurred outside of the Hebrew calendar. The clock starts ticking once Adam is created.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askra...rstart.htm

The Talmud tells us that Adam was not the first human… only the first human in G-d’s image. Adam is said to be the first person with a soul, but according to the Talmud, there are 974 generations of man before him. We can see this being alluded to in Genesis because Adam has to find a partner, but he can’t find anyone who makes him happy. We Jews don’t think he was looking for a partner among the rabbits and the goats. We believe that he was looking for a wife from the population of existing people who were living on earth.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso...ution.html

The Talmud and the Torah are equally important in Judaism. Christianity may only read their poorly translated copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, but we have a much larger resource at our fingertips. One really cannot read the Torah without the Talmud and hope to understand the Jewish position. I would argue that without the Talmud, the nuances of the Hebrew language will be lost. Then all you have is a flat definition for the word “yom” to mean a 24 hour “day”, and nothing else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Aliza's post
23-08-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 01:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  A retelling of the creation story in Genesis, using simple language available at the time, to accurately describe the formation of the universe and life on our planet.




A good point! (And great video.) But a bit beyond the ability of my Creationist cellmate, at the time, to stretch his mind. I try to be gentle with them. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-08-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 01:54 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 10:44 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  What of the two claims you hold to be the truth?

Disclaimer: Just for the record, I didn't come to an atheist forum to spout my religious doctrine. This is not an unsolicited request for my viewpoint.

We're totally cool with people sharing their viewpoints, especially ones that (while coming to different conclusions than we do) respect rational thinking and the Scientific Method. If someone is an atheist without having honestly considered other possibilities, especially without listening to the ideas of their fellow human beings, I don't have much more respect for them than I do with the Creationists who stick to their version to the exclusion of all other ideas.

The ones who come in here and tell us How It Really Is™, especially when their ideas are in direct contravention to clearly provable facts about the world, and then won't listen to us when we explain to them why we know what we know, are the ones we will ridicule mercilessly. If you'll notice, we enjoy a good debate even with each other, and will try to poke holes in each of our own beliefs, because that is how a person keeps honesty in their thought processes. Also you may notice that even the worst theists get a fair shake at being listened to, at first, and only when they prove to be dishonest or only interested in preaching but not listening do we start to ridicule them. (And, in my opinion, rightfully so!)

I'm actually a little sad that we don't have more intellectually-honest theists on here, like you and KC, because frankly they're better at smashing the lunacy of the True Believer™ than we are, because the TB thinks our opinions are the delusions of people who "refuse" to believe, a way of covering their own dishonesty by assuming we are equally dishonest. When a Believer tells them they're full of crap, though, they don't have that mental defense. Or at least, not to the same degree.

And thanks for the information about Judaism. Smile

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-08-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 01:54 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 10:44 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Oh, I am not questioning you being a theist, I just found it strange that somebody can reconcile two, in my opinion irreconcilable things.

Jenny's example will work just fine. I hope that you don't need me to go to a specific lines in the story of creation? But if you do , how about Earth existing before the sun does. How can there even be "day one, two..." before there is sun?

So in short, science says that Sun is (billions of years) older then the Earth and your religion claims the opposite.

What of the two claims you hold to be the truth?

Disclaimer: Just for the record, I didn't come to an atheist forum to spout my religious doctrine. This is not an unsolicited request for my viewpoint.

The Christian people reject the Talmud for a variety of reasons… but maybe if they had it, they wouldn’t be so opposed to the idea of evolution. And before I continue, I want to clarify that there ARE Jews out there who absolutely are convinced that evolution is bogus. That’s their problem. I'm giving you a very brief explanation of how I feel that I can be both a Jew and an aspiring scientist. I have to watch myself or I'll give you a 10 page "summary" of the Jewish position on the first sentence of Genesis. So if this isn't detailed enough for you, you're welcome to PM and I'll try to be more specific.

VERY BRIEFLY:

The Hebrew calendar begins after the creation of Adam. When Christians insist that the world is 6,000 years old, they’re forgetting that they stole our bible from us and mistranslated it, and refused to consider our Talmud, which is an essential companion to the scripture. Your idea that the religious community uniformly believes that the universe was created 6,000 (or more specifically 5775) years ago is really exclusively a Christian one. ALL learned Jews, regardless of their denomination or their position on evolution, agree that the creation of the universe, earth and mankind occurred outside of the Hebrew calendar. The clock starts ticking once Adam is created.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askra...rstart.htm

The Talmud tells us that Adam was not the first human… only the first human in G-d’s image. Adam is said to be the first person with a soul, but according to the Talmud, there are 974 generations of man before him. We can see this being alluded to in Genesis because Adam has to find a partner, but he can’t find anyone who makes him happy. We Jews don’t think he was looking for a partner among the rabbits and the goats. We believe that he was looking for a wife from the population of existing people who were living on earth.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso...ution.html

The Talmud and the Torah are equally important in Judaism. Christianity may only read their poorly translated copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, but we have a much larger resource at our fingertips. One really cannot read the Torah without the Talmud and hope to understand the Jewish position. I would argue that without the Talmud, the nuances of the Hebrew language will be lost. Then all you have is a flat definition for the word “yom” to mean a 24 hour “day”, and nothing else.

Thanks for explaining your views. Smile I am just curious about the 974 generations prior to Adam. These generations were thought to be soulless? Also, what about the animals and plant life--there were 974 generations of people living before animals and plants came into existence? I am genuinely interested in the Jewish view on this. I love learning about different cultures and religions. I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: