Kent Hovind

Oh brother! You don't really believe that do you????

I think some of the criticism of Kent Hovind is a bit overblown, but as a strict 6 24-hr day YEC, I would not recommend him at this time. All science progresses and scientific creationism has progressed since the early days of Morris and ICR. We need to drop the moon dust, canopy theory, and other falacious arguments. In fact, for the most part, I would just stick with the Bible and argue theologically. Theological arguments provide the strongest proof for the YEC position. I do appreciate the contributions of ethical creation scientists, though.

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do believe it. Industries protect themselves, always have always will.

The thing that I am noticing about opponents to a young earth theory is they really don't bring anything to the table to support their beliefs.

Please show your evidence that the canopy belief is "falacious". What do you have that says otherwise?

What would consider the "firmament" above the earth?

 

Both ICR and AiG have information on their websites refuting the canopy theory. Scientifically, it doesn't work. Even Vardiman, who I believe was an early if not original advocate of the canopy theory, has come to the conclusion that a canopy containing any significant amounts of water would render the earth too hot for human survival.

There is a theological reason to reject the canopy theory as well. David refers to the waters above the firmement in Psalm 148:4. Those waters still existed in David's day so they could not be the source of the rain in Noah's. There is no mention of a canopy within the firmament, only below (the seas) and above. Whatever the waters above the firmament are, I think they have to be beyond outer space. I don't see any other option.

We don't need a canopy to supply the water. First, God could have created the water without a "source" and, second, the shifting and breaking up the contenents could have created the fountains of the great deep that combined with regular rain water to flood the earth.

At any rate, the Bible says nothing about a canopy. If science debunks a canopy theory, it hasn't done any damage to the Biblical account of a worldwide flood. However, if Christians continue to use the argument, they will just look foolish. I don't mind looking foolish in believing the Bible but I don't think we ought to look foolish by believing outdated creation science.

Andy

 

There we go, bad statistics. Yes, rare deadly reactions occur with vaccinations. If you don't get vaccinated, you have a much higher probability of contracting a disease that will kill you. You take your chances either way, one is just WAY better odds.

As far as cancer, I happen to agree that the majority of heath concerns in this country is due to poor diet. But antcedotal evidence for cures is not benefical. For everyone who claims to have been cured by apricots, others have claimed to have been cured by keemo. What needs to happen is clinical trials, (doesn't anyone know what that is anymore), where three groups of random participates are studied, those that take the remedy (ie apricots), those that think they are taking it (placebo) and those that don't take anything. This way to medical certainty it can be determined whether the treatment actually is affective or people just think it is affective or people are out for money.

I think I lot of good research takes place outside of established medical science and that eating heathy is probably the biggest key to being healthy. But I make it a rule of thumb not to trust any of the claims and science of those trying to sell my something on the same page, that goes for drug companies and vitamin pushers. Keep in mind that the vitamin C industry in the US is also a multi-billion dollar industry. Each of these claims must be verified by independent research.

 

He's using his "degree" under false pretenses in his profession. His current tax woes are doe to his professional activity. That's not limited to his personal life. He continues to falsely present himself professionally for something he's not.

However, presuming you are correct, would you allow a pastor who has been committing adultery on his wife to continue his role as pastor?

 

As to vaccinations, I wouldn't be too quick to ridicule ideas just because they are unconventional at the time.

Although there is much disagreement, there are some who make good cases against it. With long term effects and changing health patterns it's difficult to be sure.

In the '50's, you could go into a shoe store and stand on a thing that looked like a bathroom scale. It was an x-ray machine, and you could look down and see your feet inside your shoes. At the time there was not the body of information on the effects that we have today. People probably laughed at someone who was afraid of it, but I wonder how many it eventually killed.

As to Hovind, I find his willingness to delve into the unconventional to be part of what makes him interesting to listen to.

 

I saw one of these in the Science Museum of Minnesota (St. Paul, MN) just a couple of weeks ago. The one they have on display was used (according to the placard beside it) in a department store in W. VA until the early 1970's, many years after they were made illegal!
The placard also said that they became notorious for leaking large amounts of radiation in their immediate proximity (presumably also into the bodies of hapless shoe buyers and the shoe department clerks who operated them) which is why they were eventually outlawed.

 

"In the '50's, you could go into a shoe store and stand on a thing that looked like a bathroom scale. It was an x-ray machine, and you could look down and see your feet inside your shoes. At the time there was not the body of information on the effects that we have today."
"'
The scary thing is that the potential dangers of x-rays were wellknown prior to the start of the 20th century.