End of Year

Journey to Peru—Day Five

Flying over the Nazca Lines

Today our agenda is simple: Get to the Nazca airport, charter a plane, and fly over the Nazca lines to see some of the wonders that people of centuries ago left for us to observe. By 10 am, our hour-long flight was ready to depart and we cranked up the engine of what I believe was a Cessna 182 single engine seven-passenger airplane.  Our pilot and co-pilot quickly rattled off their checklists to each other in Spanish and a few moments later, we were taxiing down the runway getting ready for take-off.  I thought to myself, I wonder if these lines are going to be as amazing as people say? Within minutes, we were at full throttle making a squiggly line down the runway as the pilot tried to keep the plane going in the right direction. As we lifted off, I could tell that this was going to be a rough flight! The pilot described the flight pattern to us and showed us on paper the formations that we were going to see.  We would start by flying over the “whale”; first we would bank on the right side, then the bank on the left side. Following that, we would fly over to the next figure; first banking on the right, then banking on the left. Now I have to be honest here, I was not too impressed with our first sighting of the whale. I thought to myself, what’s the big deal? I could have done that one. From there, we went to see what the literature called an “astronaut,” but after talking to Denis Swift about it, he said if you look closely you will see that he has big eyes, and is throwing something.  It is depicting a fisherman.  Much of this culture depended on the fishing to be able to survive and even trade so the idea of them depicting a fisherman is much more likely than an astronaut.  We went by this figure banking on the right, then banking on the left.

By the time we got to the “monkey,” I did not want to hear the pilot say, “banking right then banking left” again as I was starting to feel a little queasy.  I took off my headphones and began focusing on keeping my body in check and my food in my stomach.  We went by each image, banking first on the right, then banking on the left. The figures did continue to get more impressive and I was literally saying to myself, this is amazing.  Some of the lines go for a mile and are laser straight.

We asked the pilot if there were any Nazca lines of dinosaurs, and he said that he would take us to see one at the end.  I was kind of blown away at his response, thinking that he would just laugh and say no, there are no dinosaurs.  As we passed the “parrot,” I could smell the sweet scent of peppermint coming from behind me.  I can’t tell you what a relief it was to smell that as my stomach was ready to hurl at any moment!  Mrs. Cathy sitting next to me could not handle it and had already begun using the plastic bag to deposit her breakfast into. The smell of peppermint calmed my stomach to a point that I could continue observing the footage of the lines that we had come to study.  Just before we began the flight back to the airport, the pilot said, “Now we will see dinosaur.” We flew for a few minutes and then the pilot said, “There it is.”  As I looked out the left side of the plane, I could not believe my eyes.  Now I have to say that I am not sure about this, but the image certainly looked like a dinosaur to me.  I mean, come on, how much training does it take to spot the figure of a dinosaur?  This one appeared to be a styracosaurus, and if it was not, then I am going to need some help figuring out what this figure resembled.  I am sure that the people reading this blog won’t mind using their imagination to help me see something different!

As we headed back to the airport, I reflected on the amazing opportunity it was to see these lines in person.  Now, I still don’t know if these people had the ability to fly, or were able to make these lines using some other form, but either way, they are amazing!  Time to drive back to Lima now. Tomorrow we head to Cuzco.

The Lines are one of archaeology’s most baffling enigmas.  We have seen giant geoglyphs carved in the sand and laser-straight lines. How did they make them? What kind of technology did they have to see a spider’s anatomy when today only a high-powered microscope can view it?  In the Nazca Palpa Lines, there is a geoglyph of a styracosaurus dinosaur, how did they know about it?

All of this reminded me of a section of Dr. Swift’s book that covers all the amazing things we are seeing on this trip. In Chapter 12 of Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines, Dennis Swift writes:

One of earth’s last mysteries are the Nazca Lines in Southern Peru. An air of secrecy hovers over the lines. Certainly, the Nazca Desert is the world’s largest sketchpad. The Nazcans used the earth’s crust as a colossal canvas of art. The desert doodling pad is of dramatic dimensions: thirty-seven miles long and fifteen miles wide spanning more than five hundred twenty square kilometers of the Pampa Colorado (red plain). This giant artwork forms a geometrical melange of triangles, trapezoids, spirals, zigzags, straight lines, and strange tracings in the desert. Included among the drawings are more than seventy animals, plants, and anthropomorphic figures of mega proportions: the Spider is forty-six meters long, the Lizard—one hundred eighty meters, the Monkey—one hundred meters, the Hummingbird—ninety-six meters, the Killer Whale—sixty-five meters, the Condor—one hundred thirty-six meters, the Parrot—two hundred meters, and the Pelican with an elongated zigzag neck—almost nine hundred feet long. … The lines are ruler straight and stretch across the desert in a laser line with arrow accuracy. The longest line is twenty-five miles in length, and the base of the largest trapezoid is two thousand five hundred feet wide with a line shooting like a laser beam all the way across the pampa. Another curious feature of the lines is that, when they come to a hill or mountain, they stop, and then proceed on the other side in precisely the same linear path. There is no greater baffling archaeological enigma than the Nazca Lines.

Futher Study

,

Leave48 Responses to testJourney to Peru—Day Five

  1. Joseph Conkle April 25, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    Eric, the reason they could make a geoglyph of a styracosaurus is the same reason they could make a parrot, monkey, whale,et.al, because logically they saw one in person. :)
    What an awesome opportunity you had!

  2. Zachary Bauer April 25, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Pictures!!! Where are they? I want to see the dinosaur one.

  3. Duane April 25, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    “Futher Study

    Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines by Dr. Dennis Swift”

    Even your vacations are little more than opportunities to shill your products.

  4. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    Danny quoted:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)

    and then wrote:

    ¨It may surprise some people to find out the dark truth about Darwin, but the fact remains nevertheless that he did indeed propose in his second major work, The Descent of Man, that certain races of human beings were actually sub-species,

    No, he did not. He question whether humankind might be sub-divided into sub-species and not that only certain races could be so delineated. And by the term “sub-species” he only means that all races might be delineated one from another and not that some races are inferior to others.

    Had you bothered to read the book rather than just quote-mine you would have understood the pointed he was making.

    that a race war among mankind’s different races, with the extermination of one race and the survival of another would bring “beneficial” results in evolutionary terms,

    No he didn’t. I challenge you to quote and identify the passage(s).

    and he did explicitly state, as we have just read, that black people were intermediate on the evolutionary ladder between apes and white people.

    No, he didn’t. He assumed that the aborigine was of the same species as the white man but had branched off from a common human ancestor at some earlier stage. I suggest that you read the book to discover why he though the way he did.

    and wrote that it was his hope that in the near future the black races of mankind, the aborigines, and the African gorillas would become extinct, thus enhancing the evolutionary potential of the Caucasian race!

    No, he didn’t. Darwin was making an observation that perhaps what had happened in the past would continue into the future as a result of which humankind would be come more separated from its more primitive ancestors. In other words, the anthropomorphous apes would become extinct. In that respect, bearing in mind the pressures on wildlife today, his concern seemed to be justified.

    ..but proposed that in the near future “as we may hope according to his evolutionary theory, these “sub-races of man will eventually be exterminated in a struggle for survival, along with the endangered mountain gorilla of Africa!

    He wasn’t hoping for any such thing. Darwinian subtleties are completely lost on you. What he was hoping for (as a small stab at humour) was that Caucasians, his own race, would become more civilised. He was not hoping for the extinction of other races.

    Perhaps you should read what Darwin has to say on slavery, an evil he decried, to see what a humanitarian he was.

    Your trouble, Danny, is that you are too lazy to do the hard work but rely entirely on other’s erroneous quote-mined misrepresentations. Your hobby of seeking to blackguard Darwin’s character may fill hours of empty preaching but has no relevance whatsoever to modern ideas on evolution.

  5. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 1:13 am #

    Danny,

    To continue my comments on this unhealthy obsession you have with Charles Darwin.

    Darwin died 130 years ago and yet you still rattle on about him as though he is still alive. He didn’t invent evolution, he didn’t even discover evolution; based upon his own and the collated observations of many naturalists of a vast amount of evidence he simply proposed a mechanism which explained how evolutionary processes occur.

    If Darwin had not been persuaded to publish his theory before Wallace was able to do so you would now be banging on about what an evil man Wallace was while Darwin would remain a footnote. After all, Huxley was far more virulent in his views than Darwin but we don’t hear any comments from you about his character.

    You attack Darwin for supposing that he considered various races of humans to be “sub-species” as though that term had some independent existence outside of human calculation. But you and I are both sub-species. You are in the sub-species “Raving Christian Zealot Preacher” and I am in the sub-species “Snotty-nosed English Rationalist”. Both those categories are man-made – by me. But then all categories are man-made. One of the greatest categorists was Linnaeus but I don’t see you castigating him for separating out one living thing from another in order to give each an individual identity.

    When Darwin wrote of “sub-species” he is not writing as a white supremacist but as a an anthropologist. And he was correct about the future extinction of various races. Look what the Spanish had already done for the Carib or the English were about to do to the Tasmanian, not necessarily through massacre but by the unwitting introduction of disease brought in by the alien european.

    As for Darwin’s attitude to humanity here is what he wrote in 1838:

    “Animals – whom we have made our slaves we do not like to consider our equals. -Do not slave holders wish to make the black man other kind? Animals with affections, imitation, fear. pain. sorrow for the dead.” (Darwin by Desmond & Moore p.238 – an 800 page book I suggest you read to discover the very human man behind the monster you falsely claim him to be).

    Here he is stating implicitly that the black slaves are human beings and, explicitly, that it is the slave holders who see the slave as being sub-human. Darwin was abhorrent of slavery, an attitude not supported by many a christian slave-owner of his day.

    When in Brazil “He loathed those ill-mannered slave-owners. The men were ‘ignorant, cowardly & indolent in the extreme,’ and the ‘older women’ full of cunning, sensuality and pride.’ The ‘monks’ were as bad or worse. All degraded themselves by brutalising the blacks, whom Darwin admired for their courage. He foresaw the day when the slaves would ‘assert their own rights & forget to avenge their wrongs,'” (p.124)

    As for this silly argument you have been having about his university qualifications, Darwin had carried out more observational science by the time of his return on the Beagle at the age of 27 years than most scientists could fit into an entire career.

    From the Gospel of John 14: 12: “Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.”

    So, Danny, when not constantly traducing Darwin, what works have you done which are greater than those of Jesus? I don’t see any.

  6. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Mark wrote to Duane:

    question for you: if, in your presence, someone were to pray to God for one of these non-subjective miracles to occur and it did, right in front of your eyes, absolutely verifiably, would you then believe in God?

    Mark, you have already given your own personal example of what you perceived to be a miracle, the repair of your daughter’s eye.

    In reply, I asked you why you felt that God would single out your daughter for treatment but ignore the prayers of millions of black African kids with similar conditions. I also asked why it is only those conditions which are also remedied by the body’s own repair mechanisms or through medical intervention which answer to prayer. I mentioned that God does not seem able to renew missing limbs despite the fact that even the humble salamander can regrow a missing tail. I didn’t mention the ability of the lobster to regrow a missing claw.

    You didn’t reply.

  7. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 1:43 am #

    Dear CSE,

    Has the pony returned yet with Kent’s reply to your letter? It’s been a couple of weeks now.

    Yours sincerely,

    John Bebbington

    • CSE April 26, 2011 at 10:56 am #

      John,
      Unfortunately, he has had to put all external letters, writing, research, etc. on hold for the moment. He is currently in the heat of some legal battles, along with working on his recent dissertation. All the communication we have had with him for the last week has been regarding legal information.

      Here is his response regarding the request: I’m swamped on legal and dissertation issues…

      Please be patient (as you already have). :) Thanks.

  8. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    Stephen wrote:

    ¨Other than physics? How can physics exist outside of time?

    Why not? And who said there was ever a time when there was never a time? There could be a time that is outside of our time. For instance, a time in a another universe or even a time in another part of our own universe out of which our time commenced. Can you state with scientific certainty that either could not be the case?

    How do you know there is such thing as physics without seeing its effects on matter at some point in time? What caused the laws of physics to exist? When did the “physics” have time to cause time, matter, and energy to come into existence?

    The “laws” of physics are just our mathematical modelling of how energy and matter behave. It is not the laws that make energy and matter do what they do. They do what they do and we define the laws to make their actions predictable. If we did not do so then we could not gain usefulness from them. Ever since man decided to take up agriculture we have needed to learn how the world works in a predictable way. The hunter/gatherer aborigine is not noted for scientific enquiry because he only eats what is available and does not need to plan ahead.

    Who says that physics requires our universal time in which to operate? How do you know there is not a timeless physics? If you wish to refer to origins then you will first need to decide whether you subscribe to the “A” theory or “B” theory of time. From your writings it appears to be “A” theory but what if your theory is wrong?

    Do you believe that every effect has a cause?

    It appears that not everything has a known cause. Radio-active decay has no known cause. Zero point energy has no known cause. Both phenomena exist within our universe. Do new universes have a cause from within them? Possibly not. But they may have an external physical cause of which we remain ignorant.

    John, you know the Eternal God created everything. Why are you denying it? Why lower yourself to illogical reasoning like, “nothing caused the universe, other than physics. It just is.” You can’t have your tea and drink it, too.

    Ah, humour.

    In fact, you can have your tea and drink it, too. Both the water and the tea leaves are recycled and new tea becomes available. Perhaps universes do the same. And there is nothing you can say to deny it.

    Something either caused the universe, or nothing caused the universe. Now, you are stuck in one of 2 places;

    I incline to the idea that something caused the universe – but I may be wrong.

    1. You don’t believe every effect has a cause, which would prove that you are willing to embrace irrationality rather than your Creator.

    It isn’t irrational to believe that the cause of the universe wasn’t the Jewish lad Jesus of Bethleham.

    2. You believe that physics caused the universe (like Stephen Hawking), and, therefore, that physics exists outside of time and space, which would mean you believe that physics itself “just is” and has no original cause, and never had time to actually bring time, space and matter into being. This, too, proves that you would rather be illogical than acknowledge the Lord.

    No, you sad man. A not equal to B does not imply that A is equal to C. Logic 101.

    Presumably, the heavier-than-air engineering of the 19th century could never have invented the airplane. That’s logic. Your logic, anyway.

    But, Stephen, just because you and I are ignorant of origins does not mean that I am bound to believe your alternative pseudo-explanatory fairy stories.

    I just want to pin you down here on the necessity of the Eternal God, Who exists outside of time, space, and matter,

    But i do believe in God. Thousands of them. But by my reckoning none can exist outside of time or matter. Nor are they eternal. In fact, none can be older than about 20,000 to 100,000 years old when man learned to communicate through speech. Also, none have ever occupied a space larger than could be contained in a sphere of about 400 feet diameter that being the aggregate volume the brain sizes of any particular god’s adherents. In the case of Christianity I have allowed a billion believers and an average braincase volume of 1 litre to make the maths easier (had I been been using the braincase of the average non-theist I would have used 1.4 litres).

    Who ordained the laws of physics, and Who created all things with forethought and planning to bring about His desired purposes.

    Well, he didn’t do very well then, did he? Within a few hours of his greatest creation Adam (the feminists at the back can put their hands down) he had fallen out with the naive young fellow because of the whiles of a God-created talking snake and petulantly asked for his ball back placing some overweight, naked winged babies at the entrance to stop Adam getting back into the park.

    Then, a couple of dozen years later Adam’s son goes off to the Land of Nod to build a city all on his own. Why?

    A few years later, God decides to slaughter everything apart from whales and sharks and as many land-lubbing creatures as he could squeeze into an unsinkable over-sized wooden tub. The whales and sharks were abandoned to swim around in water of such heat and turbidity that when the sediments finally settled out they turned into layers of metamorphic rock 15 miles deep. Amazingly, the whales and sharks survived. That’s logical.

    etc.

    etc.

    Having physics as the original cause of the universe would conveniently remove your accountability to an Intelligent Creator, but it just cannot be so.

    Well, you’ll never find out.

    I submit to .blah blah blah

    Reconciliation is available to anyone who comes to God by Jesus Christ. Revelation 4:11

    Rev.4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    “they are created”. Why the present passive tense? And what pleasure does your Lord get from the smallpox virus? Or the internet or the TV?

  9. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 3:28 am #

    Stephen wrote:

    ¨Other than physics? How can physics exist outside of time?

    Why not? And who said there was ever a time when there was never a time? There could be a time that is outside of our time. For instance, a time in a another universe or even a time in another part of our own universe out of which our time commenced. Can you state with scientific certainty that either could not be the case?

    How do you know there is such thing as physics without seeing its effects on matter at some point in time? What caused the laws of physics to exist? When did the “physics” have time to cause time, matter, and energy to come into existence?

    The “laws” of physics are just our mathematical modelling of how energy and matter behave. It is not the laws that make energy and matter do what they do. They do what they do and we define the laws to make their actions predictable. If we did not do so then we could not gain usefulness from them. Ever since man decided to take up agriculture we have needed to learn how the world works in a predictable way. The hunter/gatherer aborigine is not noted for scientific enquiry because he only eats what is available and does not need to plan ahead.

    Who says that physics requires our universal time in which to operate? How do you know there is not a timeless physics? If you wish to refer to origins then you will first need to decide whether you subscribe to the “A” theory or “B” theory of time. From your writings it appears to be “A” theory but what if your theory is wrong?

    Do you believe that every effect has a cause?

    It appears that not everything has a known cause. Radio-active decay has no known cause. Zero point energy has no known cause. Both phenomena exist within our universe. Do new universes have a cause from within them? Possibly not. But they may have an external physical cause of which we remain ignorant.

    John, you know the Eternal God created everything. Why are you denying it? Why lower yourself to illogical reasoning like, “nothing caused the universe, other than physics. It just is.” You can’t have your tea and drink it, too.

    Ah, humour.

    In fact, you can have your tea and drink it, too. Both the water and the tea leaves are recycled and new tea becomes available. Perhaps universes do the same. And there is nothing you can say to deny it.

    Something either caused the universe, or nothing caused the universe. Now, you are stuck in one of 2 places;

    I incline to the idea that something caused the universe – but I may be wrong.

    1. You don’t believe every effect has a cause, which would prove that you are willing to embrace irrationality rather than your Creator.

    It isn’t irrational to believe that the cause of the universe wasn’t the Jewish lad Jesus of Bethleham.

    2. You believe that physics caused the universe (like Stephen Hawking), and, therefore, that physics exists outside of time and space, which would mean you believe that physics itself “just is” and has no original cause, and never had time to actually bring time, space and matter into being. This, too, proves that you would rather be illogical than acknowledge the Lord.

    No, you sad man. A not equal to B does not imply that A is equal to C. Logic 101.

    Presumably, the heavier-than-air engineering of the 19th century could never have invented the airplane. That’s logic. Your logic, anyway.

    But, Stephen, just because you and I are ignorant of origins does not mean that I am bound to believe your alternative pseudo-explanatory fairy stories.

    I just want to pin you down here on the necessity of the Eternal God, Who exists outside of time, space, and matter,

    But i do believe in God. Thousands of them. But by my reckoning none can exist outside of time or matter. Nor are they eternal. In fact, none can be older than about 20,000 to 100,000 years old when man learned to communicate through speech. Also, none have ever occupied a space larger than could be contained in a sphere of about 400 feet diameter that being the aggregate volume the brain sizes of any particular god’s adherents. In the case of Christianity I have allowed a billion believers and an average braincase volume of 1 litre to make the maths easier (had I been been using the braincase of the average non-theist I would have used 1.4 litres).

    Who ordained the laws of physics, and Who created all things with forethought and planning to bring about His desired purposes.

    Well, he didn’t do very well then, did he? Within a few hours of his greatest creation Adam (the feminists at the back can put their hands down) he had fallen out with the naive young fellow because of the whiles of a God-created talking snake and petulantly asked for his ball back placing some overweight, naked winged babies at the entrance to stop Adam getting back into the park.

    Then, a couple of dozen years later Adam’s son goes off to the Land of Nod to build a city all on his own. Why?

    A few years later, God decides to slaughter everything apart from whales and sharks and as many land-lubbing creatures as he could squeeze into an unsinkable over-sized wooden tub. The whales and sharks were abandoned to swim around in water of such heat and turbidity that when the sediments finally settled out they turned into layers of metamorphic rock 15 miles deep. Amazingly, the whales and sharks survived. That’s logical.

    etc.

    etc.

    Having physics as the original cause of the universe would conveniently remove your accountability to an Intelligent Creator, but it just cannot be so.

    Well, you’ll never find out.

    I submit to .blah blah blah

    Reconciliation is available to anyone who comes to God by Jesus Christ. Revelation 4:11

    Rev.4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    “they are created”. Why the present passive tense? And what pleasure does your Lord get from the smallpox virus? Or, indeed, the internet or the TV which you were complaining about earlier?

  10. Carl M April 26, 2011 at 3:09 am #

    Any chance of a specific location so we can see for ourselves on Google Earth?

  11. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 5:05 am #

    Caleb wrote:

    So according to you a flu, producing the flu proves evolution?

    so what do you call it? Even Kent agrees that microevolution takes place. Argue it with him if you disagree.

    Or a species producing a species that can interbreed with each other is proof of evolution?

    If you think that a male chihuahua can mate in the wild with a female Great Dane then you are a supreme optimist. You would be able to get fertilisation in a test-tube but not in the wild. It would be like putting up a goat to a giraffe. Now separate the species for a long period of time and even mating via a test-tube would no longer work.

    Either way, if left to their own devices in the wild, the two sub-species would speciate.

    Or a fish that has a special protein that no other animal has proves evolution (especially considering that there is only one reason to have that protein freezing temperatures, and if you dont your dead, so how does that particular fish evolve it?

    Except that you can trace through genetics that they came from species that did not have the anti-freeze protein nor any means to manufacture it.

    or the fact that dog breeders inbreed dogs for generation to produce dogs with very specific characteristics. Seriously my uncle breeds dogs and goes to great pains to make sure they breed with the right dogs, not by populations (like evolution teaches) but by individual dogs.

    So?

    yes class, flu produces flu, dogs produce dogs, and if there is anything special in an animal or plant that proves evolution. uh no.

    Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution. Kent doesn’t understand that principle and neither do you.

  12. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 5:26 am #

    Stephen wrote:

    Hi Caleb,
    I was just quoting what John B wrote earlier. Sorry for the confusion I’m not hip to all the new-fangled “block-quoting” and “yellow-smiley facing” stuff. However, your books sounded like they would be actually useful in real life as opposed to ANY evolution book ever written.

    Have you ever read one?

    John B,
    I would rather watch Black Swan than actually read a book about evolution.

    I’m sure you would. But I wouldn’t boast about it.

    However, I have done some internet research on evo, and I look up websites when you atheists mention them from time to time

    it’s really all I can stand.

    Poor you.

    Plus, I was taught it in school and college. What else do you want? I don’t need a doctorate in evolution to figure out it is a fable, do I?

    What courses did you take in college which incorporated some aspect of evolutionary theory?

    “Any idea what an ekkman is?”

    Did you google it?

    Yes, I did but it didn’t help. That’s why I asked the question.

  13. Mr T April 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    Sorry John but you last para in your 5.05am post is so so so funny to me,

    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution. Kent doesn’t understand that principle and neither do you.”

    Its on a par with the RE student who wrote something along the lines of:
    “The Virgin birth of Jesus is based on a misconception”.

  14. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    CSE,

    Thanks for the response.

    Why is Kent expending time on a dissertation? He’s already got one Ph.D. and it will be some time before he will be able to afford to buy another one. :-0

    I do wish Kent would get proper legal advice instead of messing around with crazy issues which alienate him from the court. I assume that he now knows that he is there for the duration and that therefore raising ludicrous motions will do him no harm. But interest on the tax due continues to accrue.

    In the meantime, I shall remain patient as Job and remember to keep breathing.

  15. John Bebbington April 26, 2011 at 4:15 pm #

    Mr T wrote:

    Sorry John but you last para in your 5.05am post is so so so funny to me,


    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution. Kent doesn’t understand that principle and neither do you.”

    Its on a par with the RE student who wrote something along the lines of:
    “The Virgin birth of Jesus is based on a misconception”.

    Except that what I wrote is correct – and it’s what creationsts also believe. But if you don’t believe me please find an evolutionist who claims that any animal has ever given birth to an animal of a different species and let me know what he says. And I am not referring to the offsping of inter-fertile species such as lions and tigers.

  16. Jack Napper April 27, 2011 at 12:21 am #

    Sorry John but you last para in your 5.05am post is so so so funny to me,

    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution. Kent doesn’t understand that principle and neither do you.”

    Actually Evolutionary theory makes this prediction quite clear. The change is so subtle in that even if you could sit and watch the birth of each new generation you could not spot the defining moment where it ceased to be a dog.

    Kent and his ilk still want people to believe that scientists think a dog will someday give birth to a donkey or at least a half-donkey half dog thing.

  17. Danny April 27, 2011 at 4:30 am #

    Geno CastagnoliApril 26th at 11:55 am
    Danny:
    Let me see if I am following your argument above based on what you said, “Are you implying that an “UNintelligent something” even though it was really “nothing” created everything.
    #####
    Geno:
    Nope. I’m stating as clearly and explicitly as possible the ID movement is a stealth effort to get creation into the public school science curricula. This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs concerning the “Intelligent Designer” (which is IDist code for “God”).
    Now Danny says,
    Geno, I would think that you are laughing every time that you write your replies. They are pretty funny. Believe it or not, it has NOTHING to do with their “religious” beliefs, they just see as scientists that this universe COULD NOT come into existence without a mastermind, intelligent designer behind it. THEY JUST KNOW THAT IT CAN’T HAPPEN. Creation and ID should be in the public schools as much as any “religion” should be there. If evolution is in the schools and it is then the other two religious scientific fields should be there too. There would be three scientific religious fields for the kids to study. God gave us a mind to use to think with NOT just as a hat rack.
    “Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to contradict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.”
    Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week Address.

    “Scientists who go about teaching evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
    Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in ‘The Fresno Bee’, August 10, 1959. As quoted by N.J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.

    Danny:
    OR if there was something, we need to know where that something came from
    #####
    Geno:
    Nope. If there was “something,” the “tests” proposed so far by IDists fail to meet the rigor of a properly validated scientific test.
    Now Danny says,
    AND you are telling me that evolution meets the “proper validated scientific test”? What were the tests that they met the rigorious tests? If you are talking about what is called “micro” evolution since it IS testable and works and is biblical but macro is not nor ever will be no matter how you keep going back to how micro proves macro, it doesn’t. DNA locks us in to our kind.

    Evolution is definitely not a science, it evens fails as a philosophy. It is useless as more and more evolutionists are seeing and are coming out of it but others are not since they do not want to lose their families or jobs or teaching positions, etc.
    “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside of empirical science” but not necessarily false without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.’
    Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L.. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), ‘Evolutionary history and population biology’. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p. 352

    Danny:
    You say for ID’ers to say an intelligence created everything is too religious for you, it makes you think of creation.
    ####
    Geno:
    No. I’m saying IDists are thinking of creation and God when they talk about a “Designer.” Further, I’m saying ID is a political/social movement, not a valid scientific theory.
    This is based on evidence entered into the record at the Kitzmiller trial in which is was shown the “ID” book was simply a creationist book with the terms about “creation” replaced with terms about “design.” It is based on the leading ID organization’s “Wedge Document.” It is based on the comments of ID proponents (when they are not trying to convince government bodies). It is based on the failure of ID to do exactly what every other scientific idea has had to do. convince the scientific community FIRST, then gain admission to the classroom. It is based on the fact that we don’t find the IDists in the lab doing research but speaking before legislatures and school boards.
    I’m not sure how much more it would take to convince anyone even attempting to approach the situation with an “unbiased” attitude.
    Now Danny says,
    As I said before we are all biased, it is just different biases that we are biased with. Evolution is biased, creation is biased. NO scientist is free from it, A Ph.D evolutionist determines different answers based on his studies in any particular field and a PhD creationist will come up with a different answers based on his studies. WHY? Both have Ph.D’s in science and in the same fields of science.
    I wanted to share this quote again since I like how he worded it. This was in a post I made to CoreyApril 17th at 7:53 pm. Go back and check it out. A lot more really good info to help you see clearer that evolution is a religous system with very little science behind it.
    Darwin Only Had Theology Degree
    english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-12-2008/106822-darwin_theology_degree-0/
    The case against evolution is summed up by Berkeley University law professor Philip Johnson, who makes the following points:
    1. evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism;
    2. the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion;
    3. evolution is itself a religion;
    4. if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on a rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.7
    7 Johnson, P.E., Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington, DC, 1991
    NOW Danny says in closing for now. This is getting too long.
    “Facts do not “speak for themselves”; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of’ changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robotlike accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.”
    Stepen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), ‘The validation of continental drift’ in his book Ever since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978 pp. 161-162.
    Here we see from what Stephen Gould said in a little different way, that we are all biased as I was telling you earlier in this post.

    Danny Bunnn

  18. Peter Bilmer April 27, 2011 at 4:38 am #

    “Even Kent agrees that microevolution takes place.”

    That’s not correct. Dr Hovind is well aware of adaptations and and variations within a kind. Mostly it’s called “microevolution” but he disagrees with this term which gives a free riders effect for all the other unscientific definitions and concepts of evolution.

    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution.”

    No, the theory of Creation would predict that. Molecule to man evolution requires many jumps from one kind of animal to another ( and finally to man ).

  19. Peter Bilmer April 27, 2011 at 4:43 am #

    “He’s already got one Ph.D. and it will be some time before he will be able to afford to buy another one.”

    Could you bring forward any proof that Dr Hovind bought a doctorate degree? Or that he did not do any work for it?

    Or did you just constitute an unsupported assertion which is based on an emotional reaction?

  20. Danny April 27, 2011 at 4:37 am #

    @John Bebbington,
    Good hearing from you again John. I was wondering when you were getting back with me. I am not obsessed with Pastor Darwin BUT I seem to think that many if not most evolutionists that I talk with are. I can’t hear the inflection in your voice by reading some of your post to me BUT I do think you were pretty upset, maybe not. I don’t really know. I will be answering it soon but for now I am tired. It is about 5:00am here.
    Darwin is a loser for all eternity and I don’t want to see you lose with him. There won’t be any drinking and celebrating down there.

    Danny Bunn

  21. Peter Bilmer April 27, 2011 at 4:50 am #

    ““Futher Study

    Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines by Dr. Dennis Swift”

    Even your vacations are little more than opportunities to shill your products.”

    Your comment here seems to be nothing more than expressing your unsubstantiated and unreasonable rancour against Eric Hovind.

  22. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    Danny wrote:

    Good hearing from you again John. I was wondering when you were getting back with me. I am not obsessed with Pastor Darwin BUT I seem to think that many if not most evolutionists that I talk with are.

    Whereas many of us admire him greatly for his work as a scientist I don’t know anybody outside of Christian and Islamic creationism who is obsessed with him.

    I can’¢t hear the inflection in your voice by reading some of your post to me BUT I do think you were pretty upset, maybe not.

    Danny, if I got upset I wouldn’t be here.

    Darwin is a loser for all eternity ….

    You might get quite a shock when you find yourself in the queue to be interviewed only to find Darwin and God deep in a very long conversation about beetles.

    Charles Darwin surmised that the Creator must be inordinately fond of beetles: the earth is home to some 30 million different species of them.

  23. Geno Castagnoli April 27, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Danny claims:
    Geno, I would think that you are laughing every time that you write your replies.

    #####
    Geno answers:
    I am, but not for the reason(s) you think.

    Danny claims (with reference to IDists):
    Believe it or not, it has NOTHING to do with their “religious” beliefs

    #####
    Geno answers:
    Believe it or not, it has EVERYTHING to do with their RELIGIOUS beliefs. You have already been provided more than sufficient reason, if you bothered to check out my claims.

    Danny:
    THEY JUST KNOW THAT IT CAN’T HAPPEN
    ######
    Geno:
    Right… they “JUST KNOW.” Now, if only they had a properly validated test…..

    Danny:
    If evolution is in the schools and it is then the other two religious scientific fields should be there too.
    #####
    Geno:
    1) Evolution is a religious belief according to who? Scientists? Educators? Courts? Anyone at all besides a few fringe fundamentalists who object based on their own religiouos objections?
    2) What definition of “religion” are you using to support the claim? The same one that could be applied to partisan politics, or some other definition?
    3) The “other two religious scientific fields” aren’t scientific at all…. which is why they are (legitimately) excluded from public school science classes.

    Danny quotes:
    Professor Whitten …. 1980
    Dr. T.N. Tahmisian ….1959
    Paul Ehrlich …. 1967
    Stepen Jay Gould … 1978
    ######
    Geno:
    I’m not impressed by 30-50 year old quotes. Try producing data. Oh yeah… keep in mind, my reason for rejection of YEC has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with physics. Physics is much more a problem for YEC beliefs than evolution could ever be.

    Danny:
    Creation and ID should be in the public schools as much as any “religion” should be there.
    #####
    Geno:
    Right…. which is not at all.

    Danny:
    If you are talking about what is called “micro” evolution
    #####
    Geno:
    ALL evolution is “micro.” What creationists call “macro” is simply the accumulation of micro steps. Find the actual mechanism that limits the accumulation of those steps and you will refute evolution. Without such a mechanism the equation from first week calculus comes to mind: “The limit of n+1 as n approaches infinity is infinity.”

    Danny quotes:
    “Our theory of evolution …. cannot be refuted by any possible observations.”
    #####
    Geno comments:
    He’s wrong. I bet every evolutionist on this list can provide you with at least three ways to refute evolution. In fact, I provided one above.

    Danny states:
    As I said before we are all biased
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Of course. I’ve never said otherwise. The difference is that scientists at least TRY to approach the evidence objectively. Do I need to produce that statement from CSE declaring their refusal to be objecive again? To you subscribe to that statement.

    Danny states:
    The case against evolution is summed up by Berkeley University law professor Philip Johnson
    ######
    Geno comments:
    Ah yes… a law professor…. and one of the leaders of the Discovery Institute. You claim the issue isn’t religious? Try this, directly from the DI “Wedge Document” (which I guess you haven’t bothered to actually look up and read):
    “human beings are created in the image of God …. The cultural consequences ….Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies….the case for a broadly theistic understanding ….Design theory promises …. a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions…. we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars…..
    Governing goals
    To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. ….To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life….Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation …. Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

    Geno resumes:
    Of course, we all “JUST KNOW” ID isn’t at all about religion and the “unidentified designer” isn’t really the Christian God…. right ????

    (((snicker)))

  24. Jack Napper April 27, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    @Jennifer Preston

    sorry about the confusion in comments section of “EVOLUTIONISTS SAY “NO FAIR”. Dealing with so many different forms of rebuttal (original comments but sometimes responses in bold, quotation marks, etc.) and drudging through some many similarities in user names (and sock accounts) I misread who post that.

  25. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Peter wrote:

    Your comment here seems to be nothing more than expressing your unsubstantiated and unreasonable rancour against Eric Hovind.

    While Eric is sunning himself on a tax-deductible trip to Peru his mother is due in court today on a $4m tax charge.

    I suspect that the poor lady must be as browned-off with her husband as any fundamentalist baptist wife could ever be.

    • CSE April 29, 2011 at 8:52 am #

      John,
      Your comment is almost entirely inaccurate. Please be careful with the personal attacks.

  26. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    Peter Bilmer wrote:


    “He’s already got one Ph.D. and it will be some time before he will be able to afford to buy another one.”

    Could you bring forward any proof that Dr Hovind bought a doctorate degree?

    Peter, you try getting a Ph.D. out of Patriot “University” without paying for it.

    Or that he did not do any work for it?

    He wrote a hundred pages over a number of years relating to his general thesis.

    But you should read it as I have done and then tell us all whether or not you think it is even of under-graduate quality.

    Or did you just constitute an unsupported assertion which is based on an emotional reaction?

    It isn’t an unsupported assertion nor is it based on an emotional reaction other than staggering amazement.

    The “thesis” was on Wikileaks but it is all rather busy there at the moment dealing other matters so it is difficult (and maybe impossible) to find it.

    In the Introduction Kent writes: I will be quick to point out that “there is nothing new under the sun.” Most of my ideas are the result of the input of hundreds of Godly men and women through the years. I have attempted in this book to simply explain the things I have learned through many years of studying both science and the Bible.”

    Hearsay isn’t usually permitted in a doctoral thesis unless references are given. None are; there’s not a single one. A random example:

    A friend of mine out in California brought me a slab of what looked like a piece of polished marble, about the size of a small tabletop. He said, “Mr Hovind, I brought this to you becuase I though you might be interested in it.” I asked him ewhat it was and he said that it was a slab of marble floor. He said that he went down, blew the sediment away with a jet of high speed water, and then cut a slab of rock out of the ocean floor.”

    No names mentioned – other than his own. No places given. Was the stone really marble? Kent doesn’t say – but I say that you don’t find polished marble on the sea floor. And why did his “friend” bring it along in the first place – Kent was referring in his essay to the thickness of sea-floor sediment and not marble? And ever tried washing away undersea sediment with a high-speed water jet? If not, I suggest you make sure which way is up before you start.

    It’s crazy stuff.

  27. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Peter Bilmer wrote:


    “Even Kent agrees that microevolution takes place.”

    That’s not correct. Dr Hovind is well aware of adaptations and and variations within a kind. Mostly it’s called “microevolution” but he disagrees with this term which gives a free riders effect for all the other unscientific definitions and concepts of evolution.

    Peter, I’ve heard him say it. In any event, “microevolution” is a creationist term; evolutionists don’t use it other than when critiquing creationism.

    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution.

    No, the theory of Creation would predict that. Molecule to man evolution requires many jumps from one kind of animal to another ( and finally to man ).

    Well done, you’ve just destroyed the entire theory of genetics.

    But before I let you get away with such ridiculous nonsense give me one example, just one, where an evolutionists has even hinted, let alone proposed, that a mating pair of one species has given birth to a member of a different species.

    I’ll wait around for your reply but please note that I’m planning to go away for a short holiday in the autumn.

  28. Geno Castagnoli April 27, 2011 at 11:02 am #

    Peter Bilmer
    Could you bring forward any proof that Dr Hovind bought a doctorate degree?
    #####
    Geno:
    Apart from the fact the “university” where Hovind got his degree is well known as a diploma mill?

    Peter:
    Or that he did not do any work for it?
    #####
    Geno:
    Oh he did work all right. Have you seen his dissertation (which was leaked on-line for a while)? I’m not sure I’d have handed it in even in high school…

    (Note: If someone wishes to claim the leaked document wasn’t Hovind’s dissertation, please provide me with what you claim is the actual document. I’ll be happy to read it and revise my opinion if necessary.)

  29. Stephen Holshouser April 27, 2011 at 1:00 pm #

    John B,

    “The “laws” of physics are just our mathematical modelling of how energy and matter behave…”

    So without OUR mathematical model they don’t exist?

    “It is not the laws that make energy and matter do what they do. They do what they do and we define the laws to make their actions predictable.”

    You’ve got you’re cart before the horse. Physical laws are the causes of matter and energy behaving they way they do. The reason why matter and energy behave the way they do is because of the physical laws. If they “just do what they do” for no reason or cause, then we couldn’t predict anything. However, since the physical laws are constant, we can reliably predict what matter and energy will do. Physical laws = Cause, Matter and Energy behavior = Effect. I know you don’t like to go here because it brings you uncomfortably close to the undeniable power of God, but do you really not see the necessity of the physical law Giver?

    “It appears that not everything has a known cause. Radio-active decay has no known cause. Zero point energy has no known cause. Both phenomena exist within our universe. Do new universes have a cause from within them? Possibly not. But they may have an external physical cause of which we remain ignorant…. …In fact, you can have your tea and drink it, too. Both the water and the tea leaves are recycled and new tea becomes available.”

    I think you just like to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. An “unknown” cause is still a cause. So, do you believe that every effect has a cause or not?

    “But, Stephen, just because you and I are ignorant of origins…”

    Speak for yourself, John.

    “Rev.4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
    “they are created”. Why the present passive tense? And what pleasure does your Lord get from the smallpox virus? Or, indeed, the internet or the TV which you were complaining about earlier?”

    Why did He create Satan or his angels knowing they would fall? Why did He place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden knowing Adam and Eve would sin? Why does God do anything? John, are you seriously unable to acknowledge that the One who spoke the “uni-verse” into existence just might actually know what He is doing? Can you really not fathom that He does not have to give account of Himself to you or anyone else? Your estimation of Him is altogether lighter than nothing. John, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. The figurative “foolishness” of God is wiser than all of man’s knowledge and wisdom x 10^100. You might as well try to align your will with His will and submit to Him instead of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

    Daniel 4:35
    And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

    Isaiah 46:9-10
    Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

  30. Danny April 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    @John,
    This is the link that I quoted from when you said that I have an obsession with Darwin and I told you that it wasn’t me but many if not most evolutionists seem to have an obsession with him. I never said I hate him or was obsessed with him. You are reading between the lines now and there is nothing there to read, so to speak. I will say that he was a poor, misguided, confused man or “fool” as God would call him.. Maybe I should say, “rich, misguided, confused man”. As I told you in an earlier post, it is too late for him now but not for you since you are still alive.
    thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number14/Darwin14.htm
    The page above is good reading. This page is just a small part of what he wrote in regards to Pastor Darwin and his views on evolution.

    Danny Bunn

  31. Danny April 27, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    John BebbingtonApril 26th at 1:13 am
    .
    As for this silly argument you have been having about his university qualifications, Darwin had carried out more observational science by the time of his return on the Beagle at the age of 27 years than most scientists could fit into an entire career.
    From the Gospel of John 14: 12: “Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.
    So, Danny, when not constantly traducing Darwin, what works have you done which are greater than those of Jesus? I don’t see any.
    @ John,
    Your statement about Darwin was a blind “faith” statement and I am sure that you know that. Most of Darwin’s perdictions, thoughts have been blown away by scientists, both evolutionists and creationists.
    Speaking of faith, you countered my “attacking” your god by attacking mine. You quoted out of the wrong bible which is one of the major reasons that we are seeing havoc in the body of Christ like we have never seen it. The new bibles are teaching all kinds of false doctrine and the like. BUT I do want to answer you question above.
    You halfway quoted the verse correctly but you did it out of context like most cults do. Let’s read it in context and then I will discuss it. I do a 2 hour teaching on these three verses but I will condense it for you here.
    In God’s word it says,
    12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
    13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
    14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (John 14:12-14)
    NOW I put more context in what Jesus was saying. He said we would do greater works than he did. I am thinking, “Wait Jesus, you healed the blind, the crippled, the deaf, the dumb, raised the dead, etc. How could we do greater works than that?”
    Those were all incredible works, right John? BUT did you know that it a work that is far greater than all of those put togther. Christians are called the body of Christ, we are to be followers of him as we walk in his Spirit. When a man or woman is born again, he is “raised from the dead spiritually speaking, his eyes have been opened spiritually speaking, he NOW has ears to hear the Spirit of God when he didn’t before. God Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ works in me to will and to do of his good pleasure. CK Phil 2:13 I work with him and he works with and in me to bring people from the power of darkness to the light of God. Everlasting life is the greatest gift that God can give mankind even though he has healed me supernaturally in many, many ways over the years. His main desire is to see people come into his family, experience his life. He is a totally awesome God, when you meet him through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ you will understand where I am coming from. If I didn’t share enough on this part let me know. I LOVE talking the word of God with people. He is a prayer away from each and everyone of us, he wants to prove himself to you John. He is waiting on you to trust him with your life. He is a faithful and good God.

    Danny Bunn

  32. Danny April 27, 2011 at 5:49 pm #

    Peter BilmerApril 27th at 4:38 am
    “Even Kent agrees that microevolution takes place.”
    That’s not correct. Dr Hovind is well aware of adaptations and and variations within a kind. Mostly it’s called “microevolution” but he disagrees with this term which gives a free riders effect for all the other unscientific definitions and concepts of evolution.
    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution.”
    No, the theory of Creation would predict that. Molecule to man evolution requires many jumps from one kind of animal to another ( and finally to man ).
    @Peter,
    I know that Kent did use the term “micro” evolution but he did not like using it and he made that plain. I use it even though it is a misused term and an evolutionary term. I guess it is like Paul and others used in the word of God, they had to use the language of the heathens around them to reach them for the glory of God. We need to know their language to some degree to minister life to them. I minister to many cults and evolution is just one of them. A cult is defined in different ways. Here is one definition.” A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” That fits evolution as it does other religions. The veneration, devotion that evolution fanatics hold towards an unproven theory is incredible. To certain people on this blog site I am using “theory” as defined for normal people. Which is: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, incontrast to well-established propositions that are regarded asreporting matters of actual fact.”
    But I need to tie in the definition for “conjectural” too. Conjectural is “an opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information.”
    An if there is a religion that is based on all kinds of “incomplete information” it is evolution. Even though there are many cults with complete information but mostly false information.

    The word of God puts it this way in the book of Acts 17:23
    “23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
    24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
    25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
    26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
    27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
    28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
    29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
    30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:”
    Here we see that Paul quoted a heathen poet since he was talking to heathens who did not know God but ignorantly worshipped an UNKNOWN GOD. Then Paul took the opportunity to share the real God with them who came in human flesh to save them. A lot of blog sites are like Mars hill. Believers who are ministering life to unbelievers, debating truth with them like Paul did.

    Danny Bunn

  33. Danny April 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

    @John Bebbington,
    I went back and read the post that I sent you that you got so upset about since I was dealing with Pastor Darwin. I thought I would ask you to check out when I was preaching on a “Police State”. It is on my web site, especially focus on 20:00 minutes till the end. Really listen to 22:20 and on. Thanks!

    Danny Bunn

  34. Stephen Holshouser April 27, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    John Bebbington,

    Just to clarify;
    By “physical laws” I am referring to the laws of nature or the actual phenomena / forces that control all the action and interaction of matter and energy in the universe. I just realized I had used “physics” and “physical laws” interchangeably between this thread and the one the other day. Sorry if that was confusing, that was my fault. It seems like by the way you responded, you figured out what I was talking about.

  35. Mr T April 28, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    JohnB “Except that what I wrote is correct ”

    Perhaps British humour, steeped in irony, doesn’t cross the pond.

    The statement by the RE student “The Virgin birth of Jesus is based on a misconception” is correct where the term MISCONCEPTION is taken to be an unusual conception (unique in Jesus’ case).

    The irony is that the statements are both correct and incorrect at the same, which is why your DOGS quote is also funny, and why they are a PAR.

    Peter Bilmer is spot on when he says “the theory of Creation would predict that”. Creationism make the same prediction more overtly than the GTE does.

    However, if I take your DOGS statement as generic, and replace DOGS with DINOSAURs, your statement becomes incorrect, or at least inconsistent with other evolutionary concepts.

    The Natural History Museum makes a similar statement when using a straw man argument to refute Fixicity of Species (should be Fixicity Genus) in one of its exhibits:
    “Weasels produce weasels produce weasels”.

  36. Truth_Seeker H April 28, 2011 at 9:57 am #

    Hi John B,

    John B wrote:
    “As this hasn’t yet happened to the human race there must be a “”natural mechanism”” which tends not to permit a preponderance of one sex to arise”

    natural machanism?

    I asked you to think about it….?

    If ballance in the male and female populations and the universe “could” be explained by evolution which i dont think you can, what explains unballance in something that used to be ballanced?

    Like the natural desasters that is clearly on the increase in these last days?

  37. Geno Castagnoli April 29, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    John wrote:
    The “thesis” was on Wikileaks but it is all rather busy there at the moment dealing other matters so it is difficult (and maybe impossible) to find it.

    #####
    Geno answers:
    It was pulled from Wikileaks pretty quickly. I did download a copy though.

    One has to wonder…. since one of the purposes of a PhD thesis is to add to the body of knowledge about a subject, why would Hovind be so adamant about not releasing his?

  38. John Bebbington April 29, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    Stephen,

    So without OUR mathematical model they don’t exist?

    The formalisation of the laws certainly would not exist. I have no reason to suppose that matter would not still act as described by our “laws” whether or not humans were here to observe it.

    Physical laws are the causes of matter and energy behaving they way they do. The reason why matter and energy behave the way they do is because of the physical laws. If they “just do what they do for no reason or cause, then we couldn’t predict anything. However, since the physical laws are constant, we can reliably predict what matter and energy will do.

    YECism only works if the physical laws were not constant in the past.

    but do you really not see the necessity of the physical law Giver?

    No. How would matter act without prior-given laws?

    I think you just like to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. An “unknown” cause is still a cause. So, do you believe that every effect has a cause or not?

    I am not being contrary. I cannot imagine nothing. How long can nothing exist without becoming something? I’ve no idea and neither have you. All you are doing, Stephen, is to excuse your ignorance by inventing a personal God to explain a universe without boundaries and yourself.

    John, are you seriously unable to acknowledge that the One who spoke the “uni-verse” into existence just might actually know what He is doing?

    “Uni-verse” does not mean ‘spoken into existence’.

    Can you really not fathom that He does not have to give account of Himself to you or anyone else?

    As I do not believe in his existence I am not asking him to do anything.

    It is a mystery to we non-believers why Christians constantly quote bible verses at us. You wouldn’t believe a Muslim if he quoted the Koran at you so why do you think I would believe you when you quote the bible at me?

  39. John Bebbington April 29, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Dear CSE,

    “Your comment is almost entirely inaccurate. Please be careful with the personal attacks.”

    To which comment do you refer?

    I pride myself on accuracy and would not wish to be seen as bearing false witness against person so please would you be more specific and I will endeavour to address the matter further. If I have said anything false I will be happy to withdraw it.

    In the meantime, I note that while Kent has managed to find the time to post 3 detailed items on this blog, he has not yet found the time to write a short note outlining his experience as a high school teacher.

    • CSE May 2, 2011 at 5:59 am #

      John,
      You were sent an email regarding your statement. As to the articles posted by Dr. Hovind: We post those articles now, but they were originally written by him prior to our posting them. He does not have access to the website to post them, therefore he writes them and sends them to us – many of which were written as much as a year ago (or more). Some are more recent, as they may deal with current issues. Those we bump up and post quickly.

      Duane,
      Our response was regarding the legal matters of Dr. Hovind.

  40. John Bebbington April 29, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Danny,

    I do not have the time to address your lengthy posts.

    My point is that Darwin the man is irrelevant. No-one concerns themselves about the character of Newton when the Law of Gravity is discussed. The Theory of Evolution is independent of Darwin and stands or falls on its own merits.

  41. John Bebbington April 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Truth_Seeker H wrote:

    I asked you to think about it.?

    I did – and I gave you a mechanism. However, given that there are two sexes, if they wasn’t an approximately even balance then there would have to be a mechanism to favour one sex over the other. Is this observed?

    If ballance in the male and female populations and the universe “could be explained by evolution which i dont think you can, what explains unballance in something that used to be ballanced?

    What unbalance? And what has biological evolution got to do the ‘evolution of the universe.’

    Like the natural desasters that is clearly on the increase in these last days?

    Really? Check out the Deccan Traps.

  42. John Bebbington April 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Try again:

    Truth_Seeker H wrote:

    I asked you to think about it.?

    I did and I gave you a mechanism. Given that there are two sexes, if there wasn’t an approximately even balance then there would have to be a mechanism to favour one sex over the other. Is this observed?

    If ballance in the male and female populations and the universe “could be explained by evolution which i dont think you can, what explains unballance in something that used to be ballanced?

    What unbalance? And what has biological evolution got to do with what you call the “evolution” of the universe?

    Like the natural desasters that is clearly on the increase in these last days?

    Really? Check out the Deccan Traps.

  43. John Bebbington April 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Geno wrote:

    It was pulled from Wikileaks pretty quickly. I did download a copy though.

    Geno, me,too.

  44. Mark James April 29, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    Hi John,

    You wrote: “In reply, I asked you why you felt that God would single out your daughter for treatment but ignore the prayers of millions of black African kids with similar conditions.”

    Your question makes three assumptions. The first is that miraculous healings don’t occur in places like Africa. This is not true. From the accounts I have read and people I have spoken to, miraculous healings are a regular occurrence in these places.

    The second assumption is that God ignores prayers. I do not believe this to be the case. Why does one individual get healed while another does not? I don’t know, but if God were to physically heal everyone who prayed for healing, these healings would become run-of-the-mill and would no longer be considered miraculous. [A good example of this is the healing that occurs in nature. You can cut your finger and by the most extraordinary, unguided, application of a complex series of processes the wound can be healed so perfectly that it is indistinguishable from undamaged tissue. In every sense of the word this is miraculous but because it happens every day we take it for granted.]

    The third, and more subtle, assumption is that the sole reason for God to heal is to improve the physical wellbeing of the person healed. But physical healing is only temporary – we all eventually die, whether we’ve experienced miraculous physical healing, or not. Spiritual healing, on the other hand, has eternal consequences. Miraculous physical healing builds faith in the person healed and in those around them and this, I believe, is the real reason for the healing.

    You also wrote: “I also asked why it is only those conditions which are also remedied by the body’s own repair mechanisms or through medical intervention which answer to prayer.”

    Good question. I don’t know. But there are an awful lot of things I can’t explain and it doesn’t stop them happening.

    Maybe you would now like to answer the question I asked of Duane.

  45. Duane April 29, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

    CSE April 29th at 8:52 am

    John,
    Your comment is almost entirely inaccurate. Please be careful with the personal attacks.

    Which part was inaccurate or a personal threat? Looked pretty accurate to me. It’s not that hard to look up what Liberty University is and I’ve read the dissertation. There’s a poem in it. A POEM. We know you love your dad, but there are certain things you are going to have to come to terms with and his “credentials” are one of them. By the way, his “Ph. D.” is in “Christian Education” not “Education”, so you are essentially lying in every introduction of your father’s videos. Those are two VERY different degrees.