Our Websites

The New CSE “Current” Magazine

The following is a statement from Dr. Hovind, after receiving the first copy of our new Current magazine.

I got a copy of the new CSE magazine called Current in the mail today. Wow! I was blown away. This can’t be from the same son who, when he was 11 … never mind. You did an awesome job son! I’m proud to be your dad. Keep spreading the creation message and winning souls! Time is short. If any of you are not on the mailing list to get a copy of this brand new Summer Issue of Current, GET ON IT NOW! (And then tell all your friends and even enemies to get one.) Great articles and project update. It is such a joy to see the ministry we began over 20 years ago keep going and growing and bringing thousands to the Saviour. That’s ALL that will mater in 1,000 years!

I was informed this week that I am being moved this Friday (June 10), and we do not know the location yet. A statement will be published as soon as we know. Thanks for all your prayers!

Until then, keep serving the Lord.
– KH

View the Current

Spread the word | Share this post: Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Pin on Pinterest
Email this to someone

11 Responses to The New CSE “Current” Magazine

  1. John Bebbington June 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    Stephen wrote:

    You don’t disagree that you don’t have one such example, or that even the simplest senses are highly complex?

    I don’t disagree that all living organisms are complex – and a few are very much more complex than most. Even you, Stephen, are far more complex than the sum of one of papa’s sperm and mama’s egg. And all that happened to make you more complex was not magic but simple chemistry.

    But seriously now, the problem with your argument is that even with your examples of simpler things, you are still using fully formed things that have all their parts functioning according to their intended use.

    “Intended” use? Google “exaption”.

    Also, I submit to you that your vehicle with all its designs and features had its own designer, who crafted it with forethought and planning for the intended purpose of it functioning in this world with your benefit in mind is that too obvious to have to point out? I thought so, too.

    I used the car metaphor to show that the same function can come in many forms, some simple, some more complex. The difference between car production and living organisms is that the latter reproduce and incorporate modification which the former do not.

    Exactly!! What good would your impact sensors be if you did not have a mechanism to deploy your airbag? You see, neither one would have any reason to exist without the other. They would be USELESS. If you disagree, which do you think evolved first; the airbag, the airbag deployment mechanism, or the impact sensors? It’s the same with living organisms.

    In December each year the Royal Institution holds a series of Christmas lectures for children. This one stars a young man in an ‘orrible shirt describing just the scenario you deny can occur.


    Why did nautiluseseseses have just a pinhole for a lens when the much earlier trilobites had extremely good lenses made of rock? What did God have against the trilobite?

    Regarding the leaning chimney; The nitty-gritty of why it …….causing a southerly lean of the stack.

    Well done. I don’t agree with the explanation with respect to prevailing winds, though.

    As you think about all this, Youtube “Creation sings the Father’s song by Stuart Townend. You might enjoy it, and I think he is from your area.

    Ghastly nonsense – and I detest drums in church.

  2. John Bebbington June 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    Mary is really “God to the R Catholics, she is really higher that God, she is the MOTHER of God even though in reality, God does NOT have a mother.

    Just so I have this right, Danny:

    1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

    2. Jesus is God.

    3. God never had a mother.

    Hmmm. Tricky. 1 + 2 works, 1 + 3 works, 2 + 3 works. But 1 + 2 + 3 does not work. We mathematicians have a word for such a situation.

  3. John Bebbington June 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    What did God have against the trilobite?

    For “trilobite” read “nautilus”

  4. John Bebbington June 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm #

    Randy wrote:

    Jesus Christ (Messiah) was prophesied in the Old Testament.

    So was that Cecil B.DeMille film “The Ten Commandments”.

  5. Jennifer Preston June 13, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    Kim Sury wrote:

    “the moon is moving away from the earth at a certian rate and if you run those numbers backward that the moon would be two inchest away from the earth”

    And that is exactly what happened. Billions of years ago, the Moon hit the Earth and then started moving away again.
    Go to Youtube and look up “Star Lectures: Professor Brian Cox”
    That should give you all the evidence you need.
    You could also look up “Do We Really Need the Moon?”

  6. Danny June 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    Jennifer Preston
    June 10th at 5:55 pm
    Danny wrote:
    “In no. 2, I quoted from you told us that when our electrical impulses in our brains cease we are dead, hence cease to exist. I find that amusing too. What about when science determined years back when our heart stopped we were dead?”
    Well, the electrical impulses in our brain essentially control everything going on in our body. So I think you can safely say that when the electrical impulses in our brain stop, that our heart will have stopped too. Funnily, just because you’re heart stops doesn’t mean the electrical impulses in your brain have stopped. You can restart a heart, which pumps blood to your brain to keep the electrical impulses in your brain going, but after the heart has been stopped for a while then the brain will start to switch off these electrical impulses. This is why doctors usually stop trying to resuscitate someone after about 30 minutes.
    But as soon as the electrical impulses in your brain stop, then you can safely say that everything else in your body has shut down.
    I wasn’t talking about what I believed I was talking about what science believed. There is that word again, “believed”. All of us live by faith, what we believe. Many put their faith in man and others in God and man. If you have a problem with their definitions then talk to them not me. So based on your comments based on your belief system then we can safely assume that the guy is dead even though I have read posts that counter that argument. Not that I “believe” them or don’t believe them. It is just their opinions too.
    Science doesn’t deal with spiritual world but then again from certain pages, posts that I have been reading I think some of them are since they can’t explain certain things happening without bringing in the spiritual or immaterial world into the picture. 🙂

    Danny Bunn

  7. Danny June 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Hey evolutionists,
    I thought this was a well written article, give me your thoughts on it or in other words, tell me what you “believe”. Belief is not an ugly word, we all have our beliefs based on nothing or something. If you are not following me, evolution teaches everything came out of nothing and I believe everything came from a God who far exceeds his creation. In other words, he is “something else”:)

    Did God Create it All?
    By Dr. Don Boys
    © 2000 Cornerstone Communications

    The origin of origins is a very interesting subject that evolutionists usually don’t attempt to handle. Most of them, like Darwin, want to skip over such incidentals as the source of matter, space, time, planets, stars and operational laws such as laws of planetary motion, First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc. You know, little things like that.

    Evolutionists want to start with a “warm little pond” someplace on Earth. No, I insist on hearing evolutionists say, “I don’t know,” and I want to hear it a few times before we stand on the bank of the mythical little pond to discuss man’s origins.

    During my appearance on the “Pat Buchanan Show” I debated the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a female scientist from California whom I had debated on a show in Detroit. During that show she reluctantly admitted that maybe God was the Originator of all things. Of course, if God was there at the beginning, He would be at the Ending-and that means Judgment. That is the reason most evolutionists refuse to “permit” God’s involvement with origins.

    We are here, and most people would like to know how the Universe and mankind got here, and there are only four possibilities.

    The first possibility is that the Universe created itself; however, that is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics that says energy is not being created or destroyed. It is called the “Law of Conservation.” Energy is being directed, used, etc. but not created or destroyed. It is a law all scientists accept. No argument there, so the Universe could not have created itself.

    The second possibility of origins of the Universe is that it has always been here; however, that is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law says everything is running down and dying. Like the First Law, it is a universal law admitted by all scientists. Everything around us is degenerating, decaying and dying. If you don’t take care of your house, it will collapse from lack of care. Your car will become a chunk of junk. Everything gets old and becomes useless.

    So the Universe could not have been here forever because it would have run down in observance to the Second Law. Evolutionists require the Universe to run up. They tell us man is getting more complex and working toward perfection yet the Bible teaches that man is going down-and has since Eden. No, the Universe has not always existed.

    The third possibility is that the Universe, Earth and mankind do not exist! Yes, that is contrary to the Law of Common Sense, something that evolutionists don’t understand. This argument came to us from the ancient Greeks who sat around in their baths without anything else to do so they came up with such cockamamie ideas. We can dismiss this third possibility as nonsense since by dismissing it, we disprove it!

    The fourth possibility is that an intelligent God designed and created the Universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. And He did it in six twenty-four hour days as the Bible teaches and scientific evidence seems to support.

    There are no other possibilities, so evolutionists are “stuck” with the fourth possibility. That is why they don’t deal with origins unless forced to by “pushy” creationists. God always comes into the discussion.

    Creationists can be confident in the presence of evolutionists because we are right. Too often creationists feel like a plow horse at the Kentucky Derby, but the fact is evolutionists are bags of wind-or hot air. Their thinking is confused, convoluted and contradictory.

    In the beginning, God. That says it all.
    By Dr. Don Boys

    Danny Bunn

  8. Danny June 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Hey Eric, Are you going to have your magazines online too? Maybe nobody is posting in here since they haven’t seen the magazine yet.

    Danny Bunn

  9. John Bebbington June 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    NOW Danny says,
    I know that John doesn’t like me quote mining but he is a scientist and I am not one. So sorry John but here we go again.</

    “Given that evolution isn’t a negative argument, is it falsifiable? I think that it initially was. Darwin made all sorts of predictions, but many of them have been falsified. In order to “save evolution, however, evolutionists simply started adding caveats to “explain around the falsifying data. As a result, we now have an evolutionary theory that is so plastic it can be molded around any kind of data. This makes it not falsifiable, and thus not scientific……”

    In that article, Danny, Wile quotes Popper. What Wile does not tell you is that later Popper changed his mind as to whether the theory of evolution was falsifiable or not. Wouldn’t it have been less dishonest of Wile to have mentioned the fact?

    Then Wile describes how the common dandelion disproves evolution because it produces nectar to attract insects. As the dandelion reproduces asexually it does not need this mechanism to survive and hence “Darwinism” is disproved.

    What Wile fails to note is that this asexual reproduction may quickly bring the plant to a literal dead end. Apomixis may allow the rapid colonisation of the plant in open areas but, if it suffers some disease or pest, its lack of genetic variation may quickly cause its extinction. Vainly making nectar may be the least of its troubles.

    Bad “design”?

  10. John Bebbington June 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    Another quote from the quote miner but still truth is truth.

    “Dr. Pierre Grasse, one of the world’s leading biologists, has shaken the supporters of evolution.

    Danny, why do you do it? Every time you get it wrong. When will you stop reciting crazy creationist errors?

    Grasse was a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist. He wrote: “Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the history of the living world ..”
    (Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3)

    Grasse may have disagreed on some of the postulated mechanisms of evolution (it was over 30 years ago) but as “one the world’s greatest living biologists scientist with encyclopedic knowledge” he was an evolutionist.

    I note that you cribbed the article from Wile who is not noted for having any biological expertise.

    What was that you were saying about truth?

  11. John Bebbington June 14, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Kim wrote:

    Dr. Hovind explained that the moon is moving away from the earth at a certian rate and if you run those numbers backward that the moon would be two inchest away from the earth,

    Well, let’s run the numbers backwards, something Kent would never do in public.

    Following the moon landings there is an experiment currently underway in which the distance of the moon is constantly measured by laser sited on the earth. This shows that the moon is receding at about 4 cm a year. This is equivalent to a recession speed of 40 km per million years. As the moon is approximately 384,000 km away it would take some 9.6 billion years to move from “two inches” away to its current distance. So, on the basis of a simple back-of the-envelope calculation, Kent is wrong (as always).

    However, the earth/moon system is far more complex than a simple “bote” calculation would allow. So complicated, in fact, that the maths and analytics has still not been fully worked out. But what we do know from paleological evidence in the form of tidal rhythmites (laminated sediments which effectively record the daily tidal rhythms) is that the speed of recession in the past was much less than it is today. 650 million years ago it was half that of today and over a billion years ago about a third.

    If the current speed of recession easily allows for a 4.5 billion year earth and the speed of recession was much lower in times past then Kent must be wrong.

    Kim, you should question everything Kent says. He is not a truth teller when it comes to science.

    On a theological note we know that Genesis is wrong about the moon. Firstly, it isn’t a light but a reflector. Secondly, it wasn’t to light the night since for half the month it isn’t visible at night. If it was God’s intention to light the earth at night (well, it wouldn’t then be night since Genesis defines night as “dark”) he could have allowed us 3 moons at least one of which would have been visible at all times. Other local planets have multiple moons so why shouldn’t we have them?

    … Walt Brown a physisit has …..

    Contrary to what you wrote, Walt Brown is not a physicist but was a mechanical engineer.