Kent Hovind Behind Bars
The Pensacola News Journal reports that Kent Hovind was led away to jail after he and his wife were found guilty of tax fraud.
U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers released Jo Hovind until sentencing but denied Kent Hovind’s request to be released. He most likely will be detained at either Escambia County Jail or Santa Rosa County Jail until sentencing.
[Prosecuting attorney Michelle] Heldmyer said Kent Hovind was a flight risk and a “danger to the community.”
Kent Hovind? Flight risk? Say it ain’t so!… No, wait, they already did say it was so when he was arrested and the court took away his passport so he couldn’t flee the country (as it looked that he might).
Sentencing is scheduled to take place Jan. 9, so it doesn’t seem that Hovind will be having a happy Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Year.
Oh, and by the way:
The jury also granted the prosecution’s request for the Hovinds to forfeit $430,400. That amount equals the value of the checks signed and cashed by Jo Hovind in the 44 counts.
I wonder how much of that $430,000 will come from Hovind’s bank accounts, and how much will have to come from auctioning off God’s guns and bits of pieces of CSE and Dinosaur Adventure Land.
Let’s hope Kent learns something during his time in prison.
Yeah, I know schadenfreude isn’t one of the nobler emotions, and I probably shouldn’t be enjoying Hovind’s conviction as much as I am, but hey, I’m descended from apes who survived by living in groups and had to punish individuals who obtained personal gain at the group’s expense, so I can’t help it.
fez:
Murder is wrong. To the extreme, murder for personal pleasure or revenge.
Stealing is wrong.
Things may be done with “good intentions”. Doing so does not make something morally right.
Anything done that places one’s self above God is morally wrong.
If you ask because you believe there is no God, then of course…there are no universal morals.
That of course would lead to chaos.
arensb:
My geology had archeology on the brain.
Quick example of geology conflicting with evolution and supporting “the flood” of biblical account:
numerous trees have been found petrified passing through numerous layers of coal and “ages” of other rock layers. Did all of these trees survive millions of years?
How did a tree grow through millions of layers of the “geological column”?
jp,
Pick and use your words very carefully here, as you are attempting to provide examples of universal (which I am equating to absolute) morals. You are making a mistake in equating “wrong” with “immoral”. I would also ask that you provide your working definition of ‘murder’ and ‘stealing’.
You will have to explain how one would go about doing this.
What I believe isn’t at issue here, let’s not go off on a tangent.
You are stating your opinion as fact; please try to avoid falling into such fallacies by indicating such when they appear. Taking the time to do so goes a long way towards avoiding needless cycle-spinning on ambiguities.
jp:
What the hell does any of this have to do with geology?
Do you ever plan on presenting evidence for miracles?
No one here is denying that there were Christians in the first century, or that the Romans did nasty things to them. Cults spring up all the time, and many of them believe wacky things. What you are doing here is like showing Loch Ness in an atlas, and claiming that this proves the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.
The Bible not only accepts slavery as a fact of life, but regulates it (e.g., how much you can charge for a slave, when it is lawful to kill a slave, etc.), and doesn’t contain a single word against it.
Face it, the Bible was written by humans who couldn’t imagine a world where people didn’t own people like farm machinery.
In other words, God-ordained genocide is fine by you. And if you participated in it and were brought to trial, your defense would be “I was only following orders”, right?
That didn’t work out too well at Nüremberg, as I recall.
You didn’t say anything about torturing a person forever for a finite crime, so does that mean you don’t have a problem with that either?
Let me suggest that your moral compass is seriously in need of an overhaul.
arensb:
Said geology…had archeology on the brain. I tried to correct that after I submitted the comment, but that correction was not allowed.
Quick summary: vertical petrified trees “growing” through layers of coal, layers of the “geological column” and more coal. Unless the trees are millions of years old, something doesn’t add up.
Crucifixion: my point was that the archeological evidence supports the accuracy of the details described in the N.T.
Evidence of miracles: what criteria would you need for me to prove a miracle to you? I believe that another’s written account wouldn’t do it. I believe a large number of people’s agreement wouldn’t do it. My telling you I know personally those who have experienced a miracle wouldn’t do it. I have not provided you with evidence, because any evidence would simply be heresay on my part and certainly not enough to convince you of anything.
I can believe in them, because I know the character and quality of the accounts personally. You, of course, do not.
I believe that the fact that Jesus’ disciples went from a fearful group in hiding (before and immediately after His death) to a group of fearless proclaimers of His diety from the time of His resurrection to the end of their lives (regardless of the lifethreatening dangers of doing so) is strong evidence. You may not, but that is your choice.
Slavery: During biblical times, there was more than one kind of slavery…the kind we are more familiar with, and when individuals submitted themselves as slaves because of a debt owed. I don’t know enough about the topic to discuss it much further. I just finished reading the N.T. straight through and I stand by my previous statement. When Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon (Onesimus went of his own free will, by the way), he said Onesimus was now a believer and should be forgiven for running away and accepted as a dear brother…given his freedom. Paul said he could order him to “do what he ought to do” in Christ, he appealed to him on the basis of love. Sounds to me like the Bible does take a stand against it.
Genocide: If God judges a people as so evil they should be destroyed, that is His call. In the account of Sodom, Abrahm was told that if there were even 10 people in the entire city that weren’t evil, He would spare it. If God is God, He has the right to judge His creation. Would I carry out genocide? No. There is a reason there is an Old Testament and a New Testament. Jesus ushered in a new command…not only was murder wrong, but wanting to murder was wrong…not an eye for an eye, but loving your enemies and doing good to those who did you wrong.
Torturing for a finite crime: I believe that people have the right to chose to disobey God’s laws and reject His offer of forgiveness. I believe they then place themselves in a position of suffering. As a “good judge”, if God allowed sin, He wouldn’t be holy and He wouldn’t be a good judge.
I’m not forcing my belief on you. I’m just telling you what I believe and why. If you don’t believe in God, or miracles, or absolute truth or morals, I’m not going to get angry. I’m not going to think I am better than you. The choice is yours. If nothing I’ve said makes sense, especially after you read the N.T. or the 2 Case books I suggested, I guess we both walk away feeling secure in what we believe.
Fez: I will have to address your questions later. I don’t seem to be able to send more than one message at a time. By the way, if what you believe isn’t at issue here, then why ask the questions? If there is no absolute right and wrong, then am I absolutely wrong? I’m taking care of 4 kids here. More later.
jp,
Because I’m trolling? Because I’m curious? Because I was put here on Earth by God to test your faith? Because a Vatican representative is sitting next to me with a gun to my head and is forcing me to post? Don’t distract yourself with concern for my motivations.
Again, you are in error equating “wrong” with “immoral” and in that you are indeed absolutely wrong.
jp:
Where exactly does the Bible talk about these trees?
You may want to ask yourself what kind of evidence would make you believe that Athena really did emerge from Zeus’s head, or that Prometheus really stole the secret of fire from the gods, or that Dionysus was really killed and rose from the dead.
Some bodies with evidence of two fatal conditions years apart (e.g., a shattered skull at age 30 and cancer at age 60) would be good evidence for Lazarus or for the dead who rose from the graveyard after the earthquake that happened when Jesus died.
Obviously, if Jesus were still alive and talking to people, we could just ask him what happened.
Are you saying that it’s acceptable to own (or rent) a person like a piece of farm equipment just because they submitted to it themselves?
Some women are captured and forced into sex slavery or prostitution. Others turn to prostitution to make ends meet. Does that justify prostitution?
Where does the Bible say that slavery is bad?
So you don’t have a problem with God-ordained genocide…
…except apparently you do. You seem to be saying that if God ordered you to kill a group of people (as he’s said to have done in the Bible), you wouldn’t do it. It seems to me that your sense of morality is telling you that murder and genocide are bad, but you also want to believe that if God does something, it must be good. It seems you’re trying to play both sides of the Euthyphro dilemma.
You forgot an important word: “infinite”.
Do you think it’s okay to torture a person forever for a finite crime?
jp:
Show me a specific example of such a tree and we can discuss it.
Well, since this particular blog began with a discussion of Dr. Hovind, I would suggest you download his seminar (I believe they are free downloads on his site, drdino.com) and watch them. They are lengthy-but entertaining and interesting. You may disagree with a lot of what he presents, but among the information offered are a number of photos and locations of just such trees. You just may find yourself not quite so certain that Noah’s flood has been “conclusively” proven to have not happened. I try to look at all available info, pitch what is false, keep what is not, and make my best judgment based on all the data available. If new data requires more research, I research.
jp:
BTDT. It’s bullshit from beginning to end.
Okay, so pick one, find a reference for a geologist who thinks the relevant layers took millions of years to form, and we’ll discuss it.
So get cracking.
I think the point is that they didn’t take millions of years to form. I just put in a search for “petrified trees verticle through coal” and quite a bit of information by geologists popped up. Looked pretty plausible to me. You be the judge for yourself. I’m just looking for the truth. I believe I found it. If you don’t, keep looking. I hope you don’t throw all evidence that doesn’t support your position away as easily as you did the petrified tree evidence. I found it rather compelling. Maybe Hovind has a few things correct after all.
If you think I’m trying to anger you, I’m not. Your last response seemed angry.
jp:
Such as…?
You said
which I understood to mean that there are petrified trees running through strata that, according to geologists, took millions of years to be deposited. So stop avoiding the question and show me some specific examples. Which particular tree(s) are you talking about? Which strata are they found in? Which geologist(s) dated them, and what dates did they find?
I can’t throw your evidence away until you actually present some.
I was hoping you would look under “petrified trees verticle through coal” for yourself.
http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil Trees of Nova Scotia.htm
http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_08/08cc_091-095.htm
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=445
Edited, Apr. 18, 2007 to fix artifacts in the URLs.
arensb:
By the way, I’m not avoiding anything. I only had about 4 minutes to answer you question between tasks. Have a pleasant evening.
jp:
In order for fossilized trees to be a problem for conventional geology, the layer at the bottom of the trunk would have to be significantly older than the layer at the top of the trunk, by tens of thousands of years or more. As far as I can tell, none of your sources quote or even reference a mainstream geologist giving different dates for the top and bottom of the relevant layers. The closest I could find was this passage from the earthage.org page:
This is obviously poetic, and at any rate fails to give a specific date for the relevant layers, or even any reason to believe that the specific layers (2 and 3, in the first illustration) with trees took thousands of years to be laid down.
I also find it amusing that that passage comes from The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins by Laing Ferguson, a 52-page pamphlet retailing for $3.95 (Canadian dollars, I assume), and which a review at the University of Manitoba recommends for students 16 and over. (The ICR Impact article cites the same source.) Is this what passes for references to scholarly literature in the creationist world?
You also said earlier:
So where are these trees? The earthage.org article has a picture of what such a tree might look like, if trees in different 19th-century articles are the same tree; the ICR article mentions trees penetrating “thin seams of coal”, but neither source can be bothered to provide an actual photo of such a tree, or any other artifact that mainstream geologists can’t explain. So where are these trees? Why are there no photos?
Basically, all I see is a bunch of handwaving, and your sources don’t even deliver what you promised, which leads me to believe that either you didn’t read them carefully enough, or you misremembered what you read.
arensb:
One such photo is viewable at…www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htm.
If you actually watched Hovind’s seminar, you would have seen a number of similar photos. Many of these photos show a literal forest of these trees.
After reading the articles I referenced, you should understand that the geologists I referenced don’t believe that the lower layers of rock are any older than the upper layers. For a tree to petrify vertically, it would either have to be quickly buried in that position, or submerged under water a great deal of water in that position…say, maybe by a flood. I agree. I haven’t seen any “mainstream” geologist date the lower layers these trees pass through older than the top layers. Why? Any if they have different strata, which they obviously do (see the photo), then how did so many strata form while the tree didn’t rot away? Is it possible that a great number of strata could all form in such a short period of time? You talk about circular reasoning. The geological column dates fossils by layers, and then it turns around and dates layers by fossils.
In theory, different animals would survive a flood longer or shorter based much upon their survivability. Birds, for instance, could remain in the air or fly to higher ground much easier than other animals. There is much more to this theory, but you said you already heard it all, so I won’t waste our time.
The sources I referenced took me 30 seconds to find in a google search. I’m sure we could find other references more befitting your educational criteria.
No handwaving here. Just scratching the surface of evidence that doesn’t support evolution. If you want a hearty helping of it, read “Case for a Creator”. That should meet your criteria…and they do take the time to give the contributors’ educational backgrounds.
One of the difficulties you have in “proving” miracles or the resurrection is they are not repeatable in the scientific sense. They happen at a moment in time and thus become history. The only way to “prove” them is by testimonial evidence, not “scientific.” It is the same with a crime or any other event. Unless there is video evidence or photographic evidence, the method of proof is limited.
Everyone believes that Julius Caesar lived and was killed by Brutus, but there is far more evidence for Christ and His resurrection than for Julius Caesar. Yet, everyone believes the history of Julius Caesar. Perhaps because his existance doesn’t place any expectations on us today.
Another ex-skeptic wrote quite an extensive paper on God’s existence. You might check it out when you have the time: http://www.josh.org/download/pdf/Arguments_for_Gods_Existence.pdf
Edited, Thu Apr 19 18:47:07 EDT 2007 to fix mangled URL. — arensb
jp:
Is that a photo of one of the Joggins trees? How can you tell? There’s no attribution that I can see. And while I’m not a geologist, it certainly doesn’t look as though it’s going through “numerous layers of coal”.
I’ve attended a talk by Hovind, one in which he showed a textbook illustration of a planetary disk, and called it the Big Bang. It just goes to show that his words and his illustrations don’t necessarily go together.
I understand that. But you said that the Joggins petrified trees posed a problem for mainstream science, so show me a measurement by a competent mainstream scientist showing that the upper part was laid down long after the lower part.
Ah, yes, the “grass outran velociraptors” theory. Always good for a chuckle.
You are handwaving. You probably just don’t recognize it.
You promised me an “example of geology conflicting with evolution and supporting “the flood” of biblical account: numerous trees have been found petrified passing through numerous layers of coal and “ages” of other rock layers”, yet you haven’t presented any evidence that you even know what the mainstream explanation for these features is, let alone evidence that a problem exists (to say nothing of the fact that you seem confused about the difference between evolution and geology).
So why believe that they occurred?
And besides, people claim miraculous occurrences all the time. There’s an Englishman currently revered as a goddess in India. People say he/she can cure infertility. Do you believe that?
Really? Then where are the books that Christ wrote himself? Where are the statues erected to him during his lifetime? Where are the letters by his enemies listing everything that’s wrong with him?
I read the first five or six pages and skimmed the rest. It’s crap. Nothing but a bunch of PRATTs. If you really think that Kalaam or Paley’s watchmaker are good arguments, go spend some time at Internet Infidels or Iron Chariots. Or if you don’t want to visit such dens of godlessness, come on over to the General Apologetics area at Christian Forums.
Oh, and I picked up The Case for a Creator at the library. I hope it’s better than that paper. If I make it through it, I might write it up for Iron Chariots and just direct you there.
arensb:
Let me try again.
The photo may or may not be one of the Joggins trees…it is a petrified tree thats base is in a layer of coal while the rest of it extends upward through layers of rock. I’m still waiting for you to tell me how that could happen other than the possible explanations I provided.
One of the number of photos (not illustrations) Hovind presents in a seminar is of a petrified tree passing through two seperate layers of coal.
You attended a “talk” of Hovind and an illustration didn’t match and that is your best example of nothing he says is accurate? Who’s hand waiving?
Of course your aren’t going to find a geologist that dates the upper part differently than the lower part. That would put a serious dent in their entire theory of evolution. But they also don’t seem to have an explanation of how this phenomena could happen at all…making my point. By the way, the connection between evolution and geology is quite close. A foundational belief of evolution is the accuracy of the geological column.
I never promised you anything. I’m just offering answers to questions asked. Just because I don’t drop everything else in my life and do an exhaustive amount of research on every little doubt you present, does not mean the answers just aren’t available. I’m doing the best I can with the time I have. This is not my field of study. I just think it is worth studying.
Keep chuckling. At least it shows you have some joy in life. Still, what you pass off with a chuckle is simply a logical point.
Why believe testimonial evidence? Ask the courts. Sure people give false testimony all the time. Does that mean all testimony is false? No. Is there anything wrong with checking it out with other evidence and testimony? No. Is some testimony true. Yes. Can true testimony make a world of difference? I believe so. Again, I’m not telling you you have to.
The questions you ask about Jesus writings, a statue, or letters from enemies don’t really follow logic: Most communication during Jesus day was oral. His ministry was only three active years. He would never have allowed a statue of himself to be made during his lifetime…it would go against His teaching. Letters by His enemies? His enemies were religious leaders who had Him killed. Again, you wouldn’t expect there to be letters. Jesus was a religious figure, not a political one.
I’m glad you found “Creator”. Maybe you would have a better comprehension of it and other writings (Oh, say the New Testament) if you actually read the whole thing. I realize you have already made up your mind before you look at anything I present. I know it is difficult, but do your best to keep an open mind. Follow through. Did you get the book or audio CD?
jp:
So why did you bring it up? We were talking specifically about the Joggins trees, remember? You said you had evidence against evolution. I want to take a close look at this evidence, but how can I do that if you won’t present it?
Do creationists have any evidence that stands up to close scrutiny?
Just for fun, I looked up and downloaded Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova Scotia by MC Rygel, MR Gibling, JH Calder, and published in Sedimentology, 51:3, p. 531, 2004. Go look it up. Note, for instance, figure 3 on page 535, which shows, by my count, 28 tree stumps and their position within the geologic column. Note the detailed descriptions of the formations the authors discuss. Note the four pages of references to the literature. Why don’t creationists ever want to go into that level of detail?
No, that was just one example. See here for more.
First of all, you seem confused: evolution is part of biology. That’s a different field of study from geology.
Secondly, allow me to quote from Michael J. Benton and Philip C. J. Donoghue, Paleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(1):26-53; doi:10.1093/molbev/msl150:
I haven’t looked up these references yet, but it certainly doesn’t seem as though geologists are shy about arguing the age of the Joggins formation.
You mean you don’t know what the mainstream explanation is. There’s a difference between “I don’t know” and “nobody knows”.
At any rate, the obvious explanation for the tree whose photo you provided is:
Tree grew in soil
A nearby river overflowed its banks, or a levee was breached, flooding the area where the tree grew
The part of the tree that was above water rotted away. The part that was buried got permineralized. The soil in which it grew turned into coal.
What’s so difficult about that?
The point I’m trying to make is that there is no evidence for creationism that can withstand scrutiny. That’s why there are no detailed examinations of specific artifacts, with cross-checks and supporting documentation, that support young-earth creationism.
You said that the evidence for Jesus is better than the evidence for Julius Caesar. We have books that Caesar allegedly wrote; we have statues of him erected during his lifetime. We have texts written about him while he was alive. Where is the comparable evidence for Jesus?
The book, natch.
jp,
Now that you’ve been pretty concisely corrected by arensb, are you going to address my questions? The arguments and counter-arguments on this thread are now repetitions of that which has gone by numerous time before, and my interest is waning.
I sent the photo because it was an example of a petrified tree passing through a coal seam and numerous layers of rock. That was my understanding of what you wanted to see. You may have been specifically talking about the Joggins trees. I was talking about verticle petrified trees in general. One of the trees discovered by a drilling team was a 60 (I believe) meter verticle tree. That is quite a flood that would have to take place to bury that size of a tree (even if I am mistaken and it was 60 feet). Not quite a stump. If you want the reference concerning the drilling team, it is available on the Hovind seminar on DVD. If you simply don’t trust anything he has to say, and aren’t willing to watch the seminar, just pretend I never mentioned it.
I have lived long enough to know that just because a number of scientist come to a “consensus” does not make their theory fact or even science. In fact, consensus means a greater number agree on a guess. I judge their theory based on the evidence for and against. I’m sure you do the same. Look at global warming. There is as much evidence against it as for it. And to think man is causing it is almost laughable. 30 years ago, the same body of scientists we predicting a new ice age withing the next 30 years. If anything causes global warming, it’s the sun! Politics, money, and power just might have something to do with what mainstream scientists promote. Look at the Al Gore “documentary”. He borrows a picture of a polar bear and its cub on a floating piece of ice and says they are trapped. Polar bears can swim 50 or 60 miles. They weren’t trapped. Okay, now I’m on a tangent.
I’m not a scientist or geologist. But I can read, comprehend, and reason. Case for a Creator has quite a few references to quench your thirst for more detailed evidence.
Concerning all of the other tangents we have discussed: Just as you may not have found in my responses that one convincing piece of the puzzle that actually could change your mind, I have not found anything in your arguments that even make me question any of my beliefs. I only find your explanations strengthening my stance.
In trying to research your answers, I have found more support for my beliefs or the length one must go to try to explain them away. I have been reminded of the amazing detail of intelligent design and the absurdity of all of this from nothing by nothing for no reason. You can believe (or not believe) whatever you want, but I know too many people, too much history, too many facts, and value life too much to not believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection, the Bible, or the truth I find in them.
Maybe Case for a Creator will offer you more than I was able.
I am curious…if you don’t believe in God, creation, morality, evil, or the available redemption of man, do you experience hope, purpose in life (beyond pleasing yourself), or love? Where do you think creativity comes from?
I have, and will continue to pray for you. I realize that may mean nothing to you (perhaps at the moment), but hey, it certainly isn’t going to hurt you from either of our points of view. I hope you find what you are looking for.
I would be interested to know if you still think life was just a big accident after reading the “Creator” book.
What tree? Where is the report from the geology team that dated the layers that this mythological tree extended through? Such a discovery should certainly exist outside of some convict’s propaganda films.
But apparently not long enough to be able to tell shit from shinola.
You should consider finishing one debate before starting another, but if you want to go there – why does the prospect of global warming scare you and your kind so much?
An easy enough achievement when you come fully equipped with blinder and ear muffs. arensb is probably too polite a person to say so; I have no such compunctions. Bullshit. You are a liar. You have not conducted any additional “research” as a result of your participation here. Not once have you provided a single piece of observational or experimental data from a source that could be reasonably considered to have a neutral bias. You live your life in an echo chamber, occasionally poking your head out to spew forth the latest talking points.
It’s sad and pathetic that you believe humans are not capable of hope, purpose, and love without having to rely upon some mythological crutch. Just because you are incapable of these positive attributes from within yourself is no excuse for attempting to project your own insecurities on others.
jp:
You said you knew of evidence that posed a problem for mainstream science. I asked you to pick a specific instance so we could discuss it. You replied with two articles about the Joggins trees. I’ve asked you several times to support your contention that these trees pose a problem for mainstream science, but you keep evading my requests. Why can’t you just pick a particular fossilized tree and show how that particular tree contradicts conventional geology?
Maybe I’m misremembering, but it seems to me that I’ve been pretty consistent in providing links to information relevant to my case. But when I ask you for information, you say that it’s somewhere in these 14 hours of unindexed video.
Do you see a disparity here?
Maybe, but it’s not looking very likely: in the first two chapters, Strobel talks about his former life as an atheist, but he comes across more like a fundie’s idea of an atheist. I mean, he even comes out and says (p.29):
Google “deconversion story” and read some people’s accounts of why they stopped believing in God. A common theme is that these people wanted to believe in God, but couldn’t.
It seems to me that either Strobel is exaggerating or, at the very least, he’s atypical.
By the way, would you consider reading Dawkins’s The God Delusion, if only to see what “the other side” thinks? There’s a persistent refrain in discussions of it that most of the people who criticize it haven’t actually read it. So you could help raise the level of discourse at places like Christian Forums.
Who said I don’t believe in morality, evil, or redemption?
Of course. Whatever gave you the idea that I (or anyone) don’t?
Um… from people’s noggins? The same place that hopes, dreams, nightmares, aspirations, story ideas, jealousy, analogies, and the whole wide and wonderful spectrum of human thought comes from. What did you think?
I can’t figure out why you’re even asking such questions. (Just so you know: I also eat, sleep, give to charity, console friends, and put my pants on one leg at a time.) It’s as if you think that atheists are some completely different breed of person from other folks. We’re not. (Oh, and another thing: I sometimes misplace my keys, and don’t eat the still-beating heart freshly torn from the chest of a Christian child by moonlight. Just thought I’d mention it.)
In fact, I’ll let you in on the terrifying secret of atheism: it’s really not a big deal. Deconversion is the sort of thing you look back on after a while and think, “This is what I was afraid of?”
Why? What do you think will happen?
Actually, let me make a suggestion: in Matthew 18:19, Jesus says,
So you could get together with someone and pray that I have a conversion experience in the next year.
Then again, what I believe doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things, and may be regarded as petty, so why not do millions of people a favor and pray for a cure for malaria?
Then again, why not go for the gold and pray that Satan see the error of his ways and stop bringing evil to the world? Wouldn’t that solve a whole lot of problems in one fell swoop? Everything is possible with the Lord, after all.
Dear Gerhard Falk,
The reason he was getting sent to jail was not for his beliefs (which I do believe in) but for his failure to pay his taxes.
Edited Sat Apr 21 21:54:14 EDT 2007 for formatting. — arensb
I’ve noticed something interesting about the people Strobel interviews in The Case for a Creator. See if you can spot the pattern:
Jonathan Wells is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC).Stephen C. Meyer is the program director at the CSC.William Lane Craig is a fellow at the CSC.Robin Collins has received support from the CSC.Guillermo Gonzales is a senior fellow at the CSC.Jay Wesley Richards is a senior fellow at the CSC.Michael Behe is a senior fellow at the CSC.
(The list of CSC fellows is here.)
Gee, what are the odds that everyone he interviewed should have ties to the same think tank? I also find it amusing that neither “Discovery Institute” nor “Center for Science and Culture” even appears in the index, even though many people and concepts that appear only once (such as his wife) do appear in the index. What do you think could explain such an omission?
FYI, I’ve just finished Chapter 3. I think the funniest part is the way he uses a book by the host of The Bible Answer Man to try to discredit paleoanthropology.
fez:
Why the hostility? Who hurt you so much? For someone who’s philosopy should seemingly be “live and let live”, you seem to be find your purpose in life is to make sure everyone agrees with you.
Addressing a few of your other comments: I’m not scared one bit of global warming. I think it is a political ploy. The only global warming is from all the hot air trying to sell it…in my humble opinion. 30 years ago they tried to sell the exact opposite. It seems to all be about fear marketing. Again, you can believe whatever you want. If you want to limit yourself to one square of toilet paper, go ahead. Good luck with that.
I find it strange you think of christianity as a crutch. I would argue the “narrow road” is often the tougher road. Christ taught that those who follow Him should expect trials, suffering, sacrifice, and they should serve one another in love. Putting others before yourself…you must hate us for that. How horrible that we believe murder (talking another persons life unlawfully, out of hate, for personal pleasure or benefit (is that definition clear enough?) is not only wrong but universally immoral. How horrible that we have found peace and fulfillment in our faith in Christ and we want to share what we have found.
You are guilty of many of the things you accuse me of. Stating your opinion as fact is the most glaring. You also have set your expectations way too high concering my participation in my conversation with aresnb. Apologetics is not my hobby. I fell into this conversation by chance. I wasn’t looking for it. I don’t have time like I used to.
If my answers don’t rise to your need for indepth research, go pick an argument elsewhere. I don’t have time to go rewatch 17 hours of video to give you a reference that won’t change your mind anyway. You obviously have more time for research than I do. If you are so convinced that the 60 foot tree and drilling team doesn’t exist, watch the DVDs yourself. The reference is there. If you aren’t willing to, then I guess you’ll never really know for sure. But calling me a liar is once again stating your opinion as fact, wrongly, I might add.
You have made a number of errors, as did arensb, in your interpretation of my questions about hope, love, and creativity. You both verified in your responses that they do exist. My point was exactly that. They didn’t just evolve from thoughtless chance.
I have hope because I believe that there is a God, and that He loves me (and you)…so much that He was willing to offer Himself to pay the price for my sin (my choice to place my will above His). I believe He offers forgiveness from sin and the guilt and shame it brings (two other very real emotions). I believe that Jesus was resurrected from death, and that I will be as well into eternity in His presence…not to sit around on some cloud strumming a harp and singing hymns, but to live life as he originally intended…with Him. I don’t know where your hope lies. That is why I asked arensb my question. Not because I think atheists are some other breed of persons.
I realize you believe that we all just happened by accident..or by luck…out of nothing. As arensb is reading in “The Case for a Creator,” believing something came from nothing calls for a huge amount of faith. All of your “mainstream” intelligence still can’t explain that.
A fundamental law of science is the law of causality. Nothing happens without a cause. Evolution says that the universe either came from nothing by nothing or that it was always here. If the law of causality is correct, then the universe must have always been.
But what about the laws of thermodynamics? The first is that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change. The second is that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. If the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount. Therefore the universe is and always has been finite. It could not have existed forever in the past and will not exist forever into the future. So it must have had a beginning. Hmmmm. The two laws seem to contradict each other.
You are angry at me and apparently anyone who doesn’t agree with you. All I have done is share what I believe. I’m not “projecting” anything on you. You don’t have to believe me, or in God. That is your choice…I have far more reasons to believe than I have shared, but since they are not “scientific” and you seem far more interested in winning an argument or mocking someone else’s faith than in knowing truth, I imagine speaking with you further is pointless. Try reading “90 Minutes in Heaven”. Maybe that will speak to you.
jp:
Which is the tougher road: “everything’s going to be all right, because God’s watching over us and making sure everything goes according to his plan”, or “we need to solve our own problems, because no sky-daddy is going to do it for us” ?
I have to give you props for stating the second law of thermodynamics correctly, rather than the “everything tends toward disorder” oversimplification that most creationists use.
Beyond that, however, it’s clear by your equating evolution with chance that you don’t have the faintest idea what evolution is really about. Please, please go to evolution.berkeley.edu and educate yourself so you don’t sound so ignorant in the future, and so you can stop embarrassing yourself by attacking strawmen. It’s the least you can do if you keep telling us to read apologetics books.
jp,
You make an astounding number of character assessments based on little observable evidence. Not unexpected, but sad.
Hostility? You set the tone when you walked through the door:
Mmmhmm. You, however, were extended the courtesy of an opportunity to back up your accusations, but failed to do so.
Trust me, my expectations with regard to you were pretty low from the outset, but hope springs eternal. Disappointed again.
Then what’s up with
‘Research’ is not watching 17 hours of video from a single source.
You have been consistent in vaguely referring to your “research” efforts, but when asked to address specifics points raised you have also been consistent in claiming a lack of time and attempting to put the onus on others to do your work for you. After so many repetitions of this cycle it’s clear you have not investigated a single piece of counter-evidence supplied by arensb and are not here to engage in honest debate.
Thus without your belief in a god you have no hope. My hopes, love,aspirations, etc. stem from me and will continue to do so regardless of any definitive proof of a god’s existence or lack thereof. It’s a courtesy I extend to others as well since I consider it insulting to attribute an individual’s positive actions to some third party motivator.
I don’t know what thought processes were involved in you manufacturing your trite summation of my alleged philosophy, but I’m sure they’d be a hoot if you took the time to try and explain them.
fez:
You are right. I set the tone. I am to blame for your hostility and verbal attacks. My use of the term “clever lies” certainly justifies all of your hostility.
Oh, you aren’t buying it either?
Research takes time and effort. I don’t have a photographic memory and don’t have the luxury of remembering the references of everything I’ve ever read or studied. I’m sorry, but I know what I believe and why. If you want to debate me, the onus is on you. Again, I have offered arensb references where I get some of my facts. He checked out the book and is reading it. I already read it. I have, and am looking at arensb’s “counter-evidence”. Other than failing to spend money to download a report on the Joggins trees, I have looked at his evidence. Much of it I have already seen. I found it less than convincing in light of all I have read.
I will leave you with an interesting account…don’t know if the account actually occured, but the point is an interesting one.
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, “Yes, he did!”
“God created everything? The professor asked.
“Yes sir”, the student replied.
The professor answered, “If God created everything, then God created the devil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil”. The student became quiet before such an answer.
The professor boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, “Can I ask you a question professor?”
“Of course”, replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, “Professor, does cold exist?”
“What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?”
The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.”
The student continued, “Professor, does darkness exist?”
The professor responded, “Of course it does.”
The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.”
Finally the young man asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?”
Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
The young man’s name – Albert Einstein.
I don’t know if Einstein was the student, but to be consistent…I’ll let you research it.
jp:
I don’t see why anyone should get upset or surprised by this: Isaiah 45:7 says quite clearly:
jp,
Why aren’t you blaming God? You’ve laid responsibility for everything else at her feet why suddenly stop now? Could it be you’re not as firm in your convictions as you wish others to believe you capable of?
Sunshine, better con artists than you have tried selling this for years to no avail. Even Hovind managed it, being stopped only because he got greedy and decided not to give Caesar his due.
fez:
You are the god of your universe. He, she, or whatever. Your information is all absolutely correct as are you. You are the absolute authority of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. You are the most important being in all of your thoughts, words, and deeds. You got this way purely on your own merit, effort, and ability. Your judgment is perfect and you have it all figured out. I humbly admit my defeat in all points. I am a fool for not changing my weak and incapable mind.
Just remember, all athiests believe in God…
…eventually.
Enjoy your fulfilled life…and I will mutter on in my miserable existence.
jp,
You could have simply cried, “uncle!”. That’s much more efficient than the melodrama. You could have admitted to your confrontational introduction to this thread and continued civil discourse. Your rapid response to postings today completes my little experiment that you could even have answered my very simple questions to you sometime over the roughly five days that passed between the query and determining that you were not interested in discussion. Toss a disagreeable allegation at you though and bingo, suddenly you’re Chatty Cathy.
Oh jeze. Get off the cross already – there’s other people waiting to use it.
jp:
It does, doesn’t it? Now that you’ve learned it, may I trust that you’ll show a bit more appreciation to the people who take the time and effort to do it?
Neither do I. That’s what libraries are for. And Google (and Google Scholar). And FAQs.
This must be some strange usage of the phrae “offering references” that I had never before encountered.
The point of giving a reference is to say, “Look, I’m not making this stuff up. Here’s where I found it. Go ahead and check.” A good reference includes things like page numbers to make it easy to find the information.
“I saw it in a Hovind video” is on a par with “I heard it from this bloke down at the pub”, but without the credibility.
I’m afraid it’s going to take a while, because so far I’ve been finding at least one gross error per page. You may want to check here periodically for updates.
I didn’t think I had pointed you at anything that cost money. Maybe I got it for free because the library where I downloaded it has a sit subscription. If you’ll tell me which paper it was, I might be able to see whether it’s legal for me to send you a copy. Or you could visit your local university library. Or look up the author online: researchers often put their papers up on their web pages.
There are a number of things in this story that make me doubt its authenticity, but that’s beside the point. The thing I’ve been wondering about is why you thought it necessary to add at the end that the young man was Albert Einstein. Setting aside questions of whether any of it actually happened, what does this detail add to the story? Either the argument presented in the story is sound and valid, or it’s not. It doesn’t matter who presented it.
The only thing I can think of is that it adds the implication that the argument is true because it’s endorsed by a Famous Smart Person™. And that would only matter to the sorts of people who are more impressed by authority than by actual arguments. If you have a better explanation, I’m all ears (virtually speaking).
fez:
I was being facetious.
See if you can let this be the end of our converstion without hurling another one of your insults. I know it will be tough, but I’m sure you are secure enough that you can do it. Thanks for the laughs.
jp,
Oh snap, your buttons are so well labeled.
Please, you continue with others here. While you have absolutely nothing to add in the way of constructive debate, I’m sure you’ll continue to prove me fodder and reinforcement for the hypothesis-rapidly-becoming-theory that fundies cannot engage in honest debate.
arensb:
You are far more civil to communicate with than fez, but having an accurate conversation with you is difficult. This is not an indictment against you or your intelligence. It is simply the nature of this kind of communication. There are a number of things I have stated that you have either taken out of their intended context, or simply misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
I have read portions of The God Delusion, listened to a number of evolution debates, completed education through the university level (which of course provides plenty of opportunity to be fed evolutionary theory, and read many other books that provide the argument both for and against evolution. I understand evolution, natural selection, and the “evidences” put forth in their support.
The fact that you state there is absolutely no evidence given by creationists that is supported by fact, science, etc. tells me your are as unfamiliar with the evidence as you claim I am.
What do you believe about how life began? What is your explanation? Like Dawkins, do you believe the complexity of life is the product of millions of years of natural selection?
Also, tell me about one or two of these gross errors per page you keep finding. I’m not trying to provoke argument. I want to know what you think is a gross error.
Also, the “evil origin” story I sent to fez was simply to promote thought. I did not add Einstien’s name. It came with the story. I mentioned I didn’t know its authenticity. I just found the line of reasoning interesting.
Your response is a misunderstanding of the translation of Isaiah 45:7. Evil meaning calamity, not moral evil. The accurate meaning is more easily understood when read in context of the whole passage.
Concerning the pattern of CSC, I would guess (yes, I might be wrong, and it is a plot to falsely prop up all theories of intelligent design) that scientist that don’t support evolutionary theory tend to migrate toward other scientists who agree with their research. Surely you can admit that evolutionary science is rather hostile to scientists that don’t fall in line. Does that make the people Strobel references any less intelligent or qualified in their field of study?
By the way, you have made comments I didn’t even know were there…like those responding to comments to fez. My wife deserves more of my evenings, so I will try to keep our conversation focused and limited from here on out. If you find no value in it or don’t care to continue, just say so.
jp:
Yeah, I’m the good cop.
Then show me some evidence for creationism that doesn’t go away when you look at it. And I don’t mean Hovind’s lectures. Frankly, the fact that you think Hovind is a credible source makes me think that you wouldn’t know evidence if it dipped itself in evidence perfume and danced the evidence mating dance while singing the evidence national anthem under a flashing neon sign saying “evidence”.
Don’t try to shift the burden of proof. If you think there’s a god, then show me some evidence for it. You might want to start with a description of what you mean by a god, and how you’d recognize one if you met one on the street.
On p. 44 (and several other places in Chap. 3), Wells gives the impression that the Cambrian explosion was a sudden event—something on the order of a few years, when in fact it lasted around 50 million years. When Strobel asks him how long it took, Wells responds with an analogy about striding down a football field, but never actually answers the question. Strobel either doesn’t notice this, or ignores it.
This is immediately followed by “Now, nobody can call that a branching tree!” which is flat-out wrong: even if we had no precambrian fossils, living beings still fall into nested hierarchies.
On p. 46, Wells says that you can build a phylogenetic tree based on anatomy; and that you can build one based on some molecule (I imagine he means something like hemoglobin), you get a completely different phylogenetic tree. This is flat-out wrong: you get the same tree whether you look at anatomy, biological molecules, DNA (whether coding or non-coding), etc.
pp. 47-49 are about Haeckel’s embryo drawings, discussed as if they were still relevant for more than just historic value.
The bit on p.49 about Darwin considering embryology to be the strongest class of facts in support of his theory comes not from Origin, as one might think but from a letter to Asa Grey, and doesn’t even concern Haeckel-style recapitulation, so it’s a red herring. In fact, the whole Haeckel discussion is a red herring.
pp. 51-52: the discussion of “gill slits” isn’t too bad as far as it goes, but while Wells is quick to point out that pharyngeal ridges are not gills or gill slits, he omits to mention that they are homologous to structures in fish embryos which do develop into gills. He also seems to think that the fact that homologies were described by Darwin’s predecessors invalidates them, or is a point against them.
Okay, that’s 7 pages. I’ll stop here.
So hostile, in fact, that Michael Behe is still gainfully employed at Lehigh University. The worst that’s happened to him is that his department has put out a statement saying that they don’t agree with him. I’m pretty sure that Dembski wasn’t fired from his old job, either.
Scientists tend to be dismissive of people who make claims but can’t back them up. About the most exciting thing that can happen in a scientific field is for an old theory to be overturned: it means new questions to answer, and new things to discover. Right now, physicists and cosmologists are eagerly awaiting the theory that’ll disprove both relativity and quantum physics, which are about as well-established as anything. If anyone managed to supplant evolutionary theory with one that explained the evidence better, that person would surely win a Nobel Prize.
Everyone’s favorite example is Alfred Wegener, who proposed continental drift, which was initially ridiculed, but is now accepted by everyone (except the people who believe Hovind’s “they had to shrink Africa by 40%”; presumably these people have never looked at a globe). What a lot of people forget, though, is that Wegener did the hard work of collecting evidence and publishing it.
The reason scientists are so fussy about hard evidence is that they know how easy it is to fool yourself, to see what you want to see rather than what’s actually there. That’s why they develop a manner of thinking which is basically constantly asking themselves, “Is this crap? How do I know this isn’t crap?”
This conversation is getting tiresome. If you think you have a good knock-down argument against evolution or for creationism, and it’s not some recycled PRATT, you’re welcome to present it.
Or better yet, you could present it at talk.origins, or on Christian Forums, which are better suited for this kind of discussion. If you go to CF, you can drop me a PM. I’m arensb there as well.
Shift the burden of proof? Does that mean you don’t have an answer?
Proof for God? I took the first step by pointing to the laws of thermodynamics and causality. My statements there narrow the options for the origin of the universe. Other than intelligence or a supernatural event, do you have or even know of an alternative theory?
The duration of the Cambrian explosion is not a “fact” that is known. It is a guess. In Wells analogy, he is implying a “relative amount” of time. Neither he, nor anyone else knows.
Also, your statement about pg 46 being flat out wrong is, well, wrong. But, for times sake, let’s move on.
Wegener: No everyone does not accept it. And you forgot to mention “one of the continents would have to be inverted for the pieces to fit”. Also, Wegener’s shift could actually support the Worldwide flood. But let’s focus on the beginning. How did the universe, or if you prefer, life, begin?
jp:
You’re trying to argue that if science can’t explain something, then the correct explanation must be God.
It doesn’t work that way. Don’t show me why my ideas are wrong; show me why yours are right.
No. I’m saying that if the very laws of science point to intelligent design, then one should consider it plausible at least.
If science can’t come up with another possible cause of life (other than millions of years and luck) and they can’t even do it in a controlled lab with all of our vast human intelligence, maybe one should consider another possiblity.
I trust you are getting some food for thought in “Creator”.
jp:
If they do, then yes. So when are you going to start demonstrating that they do?
Well, it does raise some questions. Like, is Strobel going to address the fact that one of his sources (Wells) doesn’t accept common descent, while another (Behe) does?
arensb:
For a relatively brief overview of how science points to intelligent design, see if you can put your hands on a copy of “When Skeptics Ask” by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks: chapter 10, pgs. 211-232. I ran across it while reading the “Creator” book.
jp:
I don’t suppose you’d care to list their reference numbers in the index of creationist claims, would you?
Couldn’t find it, but I can tell you are familiar with the site, since many of your phrases echo it. I did a little looking around and found a lot of “might” “may” and “possibly”.
As quick as you label “evidence” as red herrings and unsupportable, I would think you would see the abundance of that found in “mainstream” science. Lucy and many other “proofs” of evolution have been exposed as hoaxes. Yet, they are still found in many textbooks today.
The lack of transitional fossils is conveniently overlooked. Fossil evidence for “pre-man” is extremely sketchy at best, and transitional evidence for monkeys/apes is missing altogether.
I liken the evolution argument to “Separation of Church and State”. The phrase came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and in context reflected the idea of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Many with a particular political agenda live in D.C. and ignore the carvings in stone all over national monuments, government buildings, and spoken by the founding fathers repeatedly. It is in our motto, on our money, and in our constitution. Yet, the mainstream continues to preach “separation of Church & State”. The same people think the “rights” of women to have their partially born innocent baby dismembered because their “right of choice” is more important than the infants right to life.
Sorry, didn’t mean to start a whole different debate.
aresnb:
I have done quite a bit more reading. After doing so, the majority of what I found was speculative or simply over my head. I have read a large portion of counter creationist claims, and counter-counter claims. For my need for sleep, I will leave the debate to scientists on both sides far more intelligent than I.
Did anything I read shake my faith in God? No. But after reading through the different claims, counter-claims, speculations, etc., I don’t expect you to change your mind either.
I hope God reveals Himself to you in a way that you “won’t be able to deny” like He did with Pascal, or the Apostle Paul, or my cousin who heard God’s voice audibly call him to the ministry, or my great aunt who actually had the gift of healing (and prayed God would take it from her because she was becoming too full of pride), or the numerous others I know, or me. It is easier to explain away miracles when you haven’t seen them, or don’t know the people involved. But when you do…
Thanks for your time.
If you’re interested, answersingenesis.org addresses MANY evidences for creation, and fallacies as well. Knock yourself out.
So i came back here too check too see who responded too what i said and all i got back was some close minded spell check freak named “arensb” thats more intrested in degrading people then whats being talked about and if your more intresting in super duper perfect spelling and grammer then go teach a english class and stop boring us with lame comments like that because its largly unfounded and you didn’t bother reading through what i wrote? i asumed you have the mental capacity too make sense of what i wrote and many people including yourself wrote much longer replys so why waste your time responding in such a negative and usless mannor arensb, next time im ignoring any comment like this.
jonathan,
Why do you think you’re entitled to any kind of substantive reply?