What's the creationists thought on this?

Mr Hovind has yet to present any research of his own - only quote-mining and wild-to-altogether-goofy assertions. And the same goes for nearly everything the entire YEC bunch has done: I can think of maybe two examples where any of them have done any research whatsoever beyond the armchair speculation kind.

"Seriously, I don't doubt that Dr. Hovind has research of his own that would disagree with many other creationists. (that's part of the problem--if all the public creationists like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, John Morris, Dr. Gentry, Brian Young, Vance Ferrell, Ray Comfort, Bill Sardi, Dr. Gish, and Dr. Comninellis settled their minor differences and agreed to combine their ministries to make one supreme creation science movement then they might be much more affective)."
--haha. I dread the day because no they wouldn't. With emphasis on Hovind and Gish, possibly Morris as well."On the other hand, I trust the research of Hovind's that remains consistent with the Bible and with other creationists (that would make it much more compelling for me to believe)."
--That doesn't make it more compelling for a scientist to believe. You don't trust/agree with the interpretations of people just because their conclusions are consistent with any belief."And there is plenty of it (I've seen all 15 hours of Hovind's seminars and he has an abundance of research consistent with the majority of creationists listed above.)"
--Would it help to note that much of those above do not do real research? I know it may be combersum, but you also don't agree with an(attemptedly) scientific finding because it is easy for the general public to understand. Hovind in particular has a habit of trying to come up with the simplest explanation, but forgets that that explanation must be consistent with the surrounding evidence (he seems to follow only half of Ockham's principle)."For you creationists out there: do you think that the creation scientists listed above should form a creation movement (combine) and be more effective? I realize it's not likely, but that should at least be discussed."
--My vote - Certainly not.-------------------

"Mr Hovind has yet to present any research of his own - only quote-mining and wild-to-altogether-goofy assertions. And the same goes for nearly everything the entire YEC bunch has done: I can think of maybe two examples where any of them have done any research whatsoever beyond the armchair speculation kind."
--I agree on the Hovind part. I disagree that all of the 'YEC bunch' has done this though.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-23-2003]

He did say "goes for nearly everything" and then mentions "maybe two examples". So you comment about disagreeing with the "all" isn't pertinant.I'd be interested in the research that has been conducted.

"For you creationists out there: do you think that the creation scientists listed above should form a creation movement (combine) and be more effective? I realize it's not likely, but that should at least be discussed."... because there is not 100% agreement on many key issues. Also, that 'total agreement' won't ever be reached because there will always be unanswered questions / missing data (God planned it that way ) within the creationist community as well as within the Christian community.Regardless, a 'combined front' wouldn't necessarily be a stronger / more effective delivery of the creationist message.Remember, the important point is that these creationists that you listed all agree on the fundamentals of Christianity, in particular on the sovereignty of Jesus Christ and the truthfullness of Scripture. That's all that ultimately matters anyhow.In Christ,
Joralex

"He did say "goes for nearly everything" and then mentions "maybe two examples". So you comment about disagreeing with the "all" isn't pertinant."
--Thanks for the notice, I agree."I'd be interested in the research that has been conducted."
--Baumgardner and Horsetemeyer have done a good parametric study on deformation instabilities and the initiation of the runaway regime of subduction. Baumgardner also has a forthcoming paper on the general CPT process. Both are still in press but I have been given access to them for use in my analysis here:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...aft/heattransfer2.htm--Hopefully my paper will get published. I don't think I can pass off the papers themselves to you without Baumgardner's permission, if you like you can give him an e-mail and he may be willing to send it to you. I disagree with Baumgardner somewhat on some aspects of the event. If you read through the article where I reference the 2003 work of Baumgardner you might want to take note of my comments.Mark F. Horstemeyer & John R. Baumgardner, What initiated the flood cataclysm? Proceedings from the Fifth ICC, 2003
John R. Baumgardner, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The physics behind the genesis flood. Proceedings of the Fifth ICC, 2003--Both of these papers should be available shortly after the conference.--I don't study very much of the YECist material so I wouldn't be able to give you much of any significant incite on very many individuals and their works.-------------------

"... because there is not 100% agreement on many key issues. Also, that 'total agreement' won't ever be reached because there will always be unanswered questions / missing data (God planned it that way ) within the creationist community as well as within the Christian community."
--As well as all the rest of the scientific community.-------------------

booboo wrote, "consider the OPEN-MINDED creationist to be the Jury that will decide whether or not substantial evidence exists for evolution."Okay, I was an open-minded creationist, and I found the evidence so overwhelming for evolution that I switched even though it took me two months to work up the courage to tell my wife and best friend that I was now an evolutionist. My former best friend has now rejected the church (we call it a village) that I am a part of, because we have publicly acknowledged we think evolution is true (or at least most of us do).I can produce a pretty good number of open-minded creationists, some of the staunchest Bible believers you'd ever want to meet, with lives to prove it, who are now evolutionists, besides myself.So, does that mean Hovind will pay up now?

Hi Truthlover, Welcome back!Although the regulars here understand what you meant when you said "you became an evolutionist" - because you've discussed it here before - you might want to clarify for booboo and Joralex that it DIDN'T imply any "loss of faith", etc.Just a suggestion.

Hi, Quetzal.Tax season kept me away. I have seven children, too, so while I can post in bursts, there will always be long breaks. Summer makes up for tax season, though, because I help teach our church's group home school (mostly math), and I have some free time while we're out in June and July.To address the issue of not losing my faith, I want to say this...I will keep it short.The real crisis of faith for me wasn't evolution, it was the combination of reading Gene Edwards and Watchman Nee followed by the apostolic fathers. Translated into secular language, that means that Edwards and Nee pointed out to me the incredible New Testament emphasis on love, unity, and the church as a united people. I fell in love with the story in Acts (one heart, one mind, shared possessions), but I could find it reproduced nowhere.Since Jesus staked his credibility on the unity of his disciples (Jn 17:20-23), and I couldn't find that unity, I was struggling. Then I actually read the 2nd century "fathers." I read everything written by traditional Christianity between the apostolic writings and about AD 250, which is quite a lot. Most of it I read two or three times. I saw that neither the Catholics nor any of the Protestants were much like the early church at all, and they certainly didn't interpet the New Testament writings the same way.Now that was a crisis! Finding out Genesis wasn't literal and that evolution was true was difficult, but not as difficult as finding out that 2nd century Christianity no longer existed, with all the ramifications that carried.Origen (a 3rd century Christian) once said that you'd have to be stupid to believe there were days before there was a sun or that mankind fell because of a literal tree and piece of fruit. On the other hand, Theophilus, a 2nd century bishop, believed it was all literal.In fact, this was always amazing to me. Theophilus added up all the dates from Adam to his day, using the Septuagint, which was the "Authorized version" of his day, and he added up 5698 years, give or take a few for loose months in each king's reign or son's birth. What's funny about that is that he wrote in AD 168, which puts his 6000 year figure at AD 470. It appears that the church of his day (certainly some, but it may have been common or even pretty universal) believed that the Roman Empire would fall at 6000 years (and it certainly seemed universal that they believed the antichrist would replace the Roman empire). That's an awful accurate prediction, or a pretty amazing coincidence, although I have no idea what one does with it even if it was a "prophecy." What's the point? Still, it's so amazing to me I can't ever forget it.Sorry for rambling. I hope something was interesting. Better tell me if none of it was, so I don't do this in the future.

Show me your overwhelming evidence for evolution. It seems to me that all that is really nothing more than overwhelming speculation and overwhelming non-scientific arguments.Let me see another one of your most powerful, irrefutable arguments right here and I’ll show you that your ‘brick’ has not strong foundation (i.e. not real evidence).
As for the evolutionists, Dr. Gentry is one of the most brilliant creationists I have ever read abouthe has done overwhelming research on radio-polonium halos in a prevailing attempt to prove that the earth was never a ‘hot molten mass’ the way evolutionists believe it started.Also, there is no way of knowing that the geologic column (that many seem to worship) is a truthful scenario. Get Brian Young’s book entitled Doubts About Creation? and you’ll see plenty of examples why the geologic column is phony. As for here; many of the layers are overlapping (just go to the Grand Canyon, or the Green River formation, or the Mt. St. Helens formation, or Joggins Nova Scotia, or Cannon Beach Oregon, or the Columbia River Gorge, or the Oregon fossil beds, and you’ll notice that many of the layers, which are supposed to represent thousands or even millions of years, are overlapping, which indicate they are in fact the same age). Also, I’m still waiting on WHY the polystrate fossils as I have seen in Joggins Nova Scotia and Oregon are NOT ample proof of the flood (or at least evidence against the geologic column).In Christ,
Booboo

quote:

---

As for the evolutionists, Dr. Gentry is one of the most brilliant creationists I have ever read about...

---

Now THAT'S a frightening thought...

quote:

---

...he has done overwhelming research on radio-polonium halos in a prevailing attempt to prove that the earth was never a ‘hot molten mass’ the way evolutionists believe it started.

---

Nonsense. Gentry has found and described what appear to be Po decay haloes, but it means nothing as far as the age of the rocks they are found in. For instance, why are some of these granites found cross-cutting older rocks?

quote:

---

Also, there is no way of knowing that the geologic column (that many seem to worship)

---

Please document this.

quote:

---

...is a truthful scenario. Get Brian Young’s book entitled Doubts About Creation? and you’ll see plenty of examples why the geologic column is phony. As for here; many of the layers are overlapping ... and you’ll notice that many of the layers, which are supposed to represent thousands or even millions of years, are overlapping, which indicate they are in fact the same age).

---

Please explain why overlapping rocks must be of the same age. I have stacks of paper on my desk. They overlap. And yet some were placed there days after others...

quote:

---

Also, I’m still waiting on WHY the polystrate fossils as I have seen in Joggins Nova Scotia and Oregon are NOT ample proof of the flood (or at least evidence against the geologic column).

---

Nonsense. Even though thick beds can be deposited quickly, that has nothing at all to do with the overall rate of sedimentation.

I have a question for your global flood scenario:If the flood was global, as you suggest, why then are there areas of the earth (i.e. the Canadian Shield) that have no sedimentary rock? There's certainly no evidence of erosion in that area.The mere existence of at least one area that is pretty obviously never been flooded is enough to shoot down your global flood - unless you have an explanation why it didn't flood in Canada...

My general impression is that this topic started nowhere, and has since wandered to various other places of about equal distinction.

quote:

---

If the flood was global, as you suggest, why then are there areas of the earth (i.e. the Canadian Shield) that have no sedimentary rock? There's certainly no evidence of erosion in that area.

---

I think this statement is somewhere between being a gross oversimplification and being totally in error (and also way off the dubious topic).The Canadian Shield is just like the rest of the world, in that there are no "great flood" deposits. But there certainly are sedimentary rocks, and there certainly is much evidence of much erosion having taken place.Pay no attention to that "Ad" in front of the "minnemooseus",
Moose[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-30-2003]Edited by Minnemooseus, : 8+ years later, change ID.

Sorry, my mistake. Clearly I misunderstood when I first heard about the Canadian Shield, and exaggerated in my exuberance. I'm certainly no geologist.Maybe somebody could open a thread in a more appropriate forum? I'd do it but I'd probably just embarass myself again. Thanks for the info, MM. This is the second time you've had to instruct me as to scientific matters in and around my own state.