Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 03:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why 974? Consider

Note that 974 generations isn't compatible with the evidence from paleontology; it's not enough time.

I have no idea why 974; that's just what it says. And I am aware that it is not totally consistent with paleontology. We can probably both agree that there are at least 974 generations prior to recorded history. There is nothing to say that there aren't also many more generations in addition to that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
23-08-2015, 04:29 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 08:33 AM)Aliza Wrote:  but that switcharoo he does with gravity to magnetism is…. Well, what the heck is that? Somebody please help me understand what he did there. Blink
He got confused when he said the Earth is losing its gravitational field, he meant to say the the Earth's magnetic field is becoming weaker..


There is truth in this. But it isn't "losing" it is a regular cycle of "switching" polarization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Quote:The Earth's field has alternated between periods of normal polarity, in which the direction of the field was the same as the present direction, and reverse polarity, in which the field was the opposite. These periods are called chrons. The time spans of chrons are randomly distributed with most being between 0.1 and 1 million years with an average of 450,000 years.

They have evidence of this
Quote:Past field reversals can be and have been recorded in the "frozen" ferromagnetic (or more accurately, ferrimagnetic) minerals of consolidated sedimentary deposits or cooled volcanic flows on land.

The past record of geomagnetic reversals was first noticed by observing the magnetic stripe "anomalies" on the ocean floor. Lawrence W. Morley, Frederick John Vine and Drummond Hoyle Matthews made the connection to seafloor spreading in the Morley-Vine-Matthews hypothesis[5][6] which soon led to the development of the theory of plate tectonics. The relatively constant rate at which the sea floor spreads results in substrate "stripes" from which past magnetic field polarity can be inferred from data gathered from towing a magnetometer along the sea floor.

Our Sun switches its polarization more often
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...e/4306845/
The last time was in 2013/2014. It occurs every 11 years or so.
Quote:Sometime in the last couple months, the sun's north and south poles completed a swap of negative and positive charges
Quote:The reversal of the sun's magnetic field happens every 11 years. The flip is associated with increased solar activity, including explosions on the sun's surface that can send electrified particles toward Earth.

The problem when these religious folk invoke science is that they offer half truths. They know their flock aren't skeptical, they know the flock aren't going to rush home and use google to seek scientific knowledge regarding what their minister has just said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
23-08-2015, 04:30 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
I am not going to waste precious time watching an Eric Hovind video.

The guy's a crank.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
23-08-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 03:23 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 03:18 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  We use "day" (the Hebrew word "yom" is almost entirely synonymous with our word) in both the literal, 24-hour sense, and as a metaphoric use:

"In the dinosaur's day..."

"Back in my day..."

The word "Yom" means a period of time going from darkness to light. This term has been used in the Talmud to describe a period of years where people went from a position of less understanding to a position of more or new understanding. It is not exclusively and strictly used to describe a 24 hour period of time, though it certainly can (and primarily does) describe that as well.

Does the Talmud say anything different re: the 6 days of creation?

In the OT--God "worked" 6 days creating things and then rested on the 7th.

From Genesis: "God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because he rested from all the work he had done in creation."

From Exodus 20: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

In one of my Bible commentary books, the writers state that there were six days of creation/1 day of rest as a way to explain how the Sabbath came to be.

From your experience, is the Jewish interpretation of creation seven literal days---or periods of time going from less understanding to more understanding?

"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
23-08-2015, 04:46 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 04:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  One of the other members of one of the other field teams who sometimes went out with me when my field team partner (and best friend) at the KDHE was unavailable, was a Catholic.

I know it doesn't stand in for all Catholics, as they have widely-varying ideas, but he showed me the Pope's 1996 encyclical (or whatever it's called) about evolution and told me that he thinks it means that God does not need to meddle in evolution or natural selection, etc, because God designed the world to allow things to come to be by natural processes, and that that is what is meant by theistic evolution, not a need to meddle to keep things "on course", but knowing the course from the get-go.

Bolding mine.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God". -Wikipedia

Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church rejects polygenism) and affirms that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual. -Wikipedia

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 05:07 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
I don't see how that's different from what I said, Chas.

They believe Creation is an ongoing process, set in motion by the Creator.

"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
23-08-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 05:07 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I don't see how that's different from what I said, Chas.

They believe Creation is an ongoing process, set in motion by the Creator.

It implies that God sticks His hand into it to keep it going or on track.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2015, 05:22 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 05:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 05:07 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I don't see how that's different from what I said, Chas.

They believe Creation is an ongoing process, set in motion by the Creator.

It implies that God sticks His hand into it to keep it going or on track.

Hmm, nope. Don't see that it implies any such thing.

I think you're Projecting. Consider

"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
23-08-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
So god let it just go, like a set of dominoes falling one after another?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
23-08-2015, 05:59 PM
RE: Eric Hovind provides evidence for creationism
(23-08-2015 03:59 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  If I understand your post correctly, Christian version of the Book of Genesis is just a poor translation of the Hebrew scriptures?
Ok, let me ask a very simple and direct question: by Judaism, with correct understanding of the Talmud and the Torah, is the Earth older then the Sun or not?

And btw, my questions are not an attack on you , and your viewpoint is obviously solicited . I am genuinely interested in your beliefs ( I know very little about Judaism ) , even tho it is very likely that I will disagree with them.

Good question! In fact, it’s such a good question that I have no idea how to answer it. I will still take a really pathetic stab at it anyway.

We love to remind people that the days can’t be 24 hour literal days as we know them to be because according to Genesis, the very tool that we use to count 1 day wasn’t created until “day” 4 of the creation story.

… But I guess I’ve glossed over the obvious discontinuity in the story of creation if science says that earth was created after the sun (I am more accustomed to talking to Christians than to atheists, so I'm treading on new ground here).

When I get stuck on something, I go back to something that one of our greatest Jewish sages who said the following in the 12th century.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides, agreed with this view.)

I found a few interesting articles on the subject. One article suggests that half the water on earth is older than the sun which brings part of the scripture into focus, but not all of it. Another article suggests that the sun already physically existed by the fourth day, but that its purpose as a timekeeping piece was what was created.

We know that the moon was created when a much smaller planet collided with Earth, so these seasons were “created” with the appearance of the moon.

Frankly, I really can’t tread on this any further because I simply lack the education to discuss this any further from the Jewish position. Sorry. Undecided I’ll let you know if I get an answer with more substance from someone who knows more than me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: