Kent Hovind

Hey, good bud, there's a whole lots of liklies, possibilities, ifs and un-provens in science theories, especially in the abstract QMs and relativities. You must've forgotten; science proves nothing. It theorizes on data observed. It categorically denies anything smacking of ID or creationism, abstaining from research in it. It's narrow-minded approach leaves a lot to be desired. Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidy Up

I made such a mess of my message to Dawn Bertot that I am deleting it and have posted it (abe: without the ":abe"s) () in a General Reply box. I've been trying to find the message to which I was replying, expending so much time that I gave up and submitted the tidied up message in general reply. Edited by Buzsaw, : Change and add words for clarityEdited by Buzsaw, : Change wording. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add word to enforce pointEdited by Buzsaw, : DittoEdited by Buzsaw, : Change wording for clarityEdited by Buzsaw, : Delete and re-postEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Hi Dawn. Imo, you can scratch existence as unique evidence of the creator because it's not unique to Creationism.I see their evidence for law and order, purpose and design as problematic for them. Precious little in this real life as we observe it works like they say chaotic soup allegedly morphed a bit of itself into life under highly unlikely odds, which in turn allegedly morphed itself from an alleged simple organism to finally morph life into all of the law, order, (abe: complexity and design we observe today.Once chaos allegedly morphed itself into a substantial advanced state of complexity, they can at least produce a weak argument for evolvement into something more orderly and complex. I say weak argument because of the lack of transitional macro-evolved fossils existing and the more advanced culturally and techy we become, the weaker and sicker be become as humans, relative to cancer, heart disease, etc. Animal species become extinct; no replacements evolving, pollution, diseases of animals on the increase, pestulances, etc.I see their illogical and un-doable morphing of the alleged first life as problematic). It would be highly illogical and unlikely for that first stage to survive in very chaotic and unfriendly lifeless environment from which it allegedly came.Life without a method of ingesting and processing non-living sustenance would die, according to all that we observe in real life. It would be very difficult for something having no ingrained DNA involving information to survive. Modern life, having all of the ammenities like DNA) would even likely die in such an environment it left to itself in that state.Purpose. Most of what we observe in real life is indicative of purpose ecologically. In abiogenesis, what drive would the simplest organism for survival? None whatsoever.Now, we move to an aspect of evidence; corroborating evidence with evidence so as to enforce the aggregate of evidence which we're required to cite. Not that they will ever admit to a smidget of it At least we can strengthen our own position in our own minds so as not to become dissuaded from it as folks like Cavediver et al have done.Creationists have fumbled the evidence ball due to apathy and reliance on blind faith. Faith should not be blind. The great Apostle Paul advised to "Prove all things." in his 1st letter to the Thessalonians, yet he is know as a great man of faith. Corroborated data, such as distances, positions, temperatures, elements, forces, etc relative to the compatibility of our planet for life adds to your list. These, individually and alone may, perhaps, afford them some skepticism, but corroborated with your list, builds on our arsenal of evidence.Sadly, precious few creationists have studiously corroborated and harmonized the amazing prophecies of the Biblical record. Our pulpits are essentially silent about them. The sheeple in the pews haven't a clue, nor do they care.Having studied them for decades, they have become a significant factor in convincing me of the existence of higher intelligence existing in the Universe. Again don't expect any amount of this evidence to be acknowledged by our secularist friends. Poor deluded folk. Corroborating prophecy with prophecy and pigeonholing them into the proper time frame is not for novices. It's been a 66 year study for me. The more I read and analyze them, the more I see their significance as we observe their fulfillment in what is turning out to be the 'latter times."Suffice to say that anyone willing to observe, learn and apply can add the fulfilled prophecies relative to the end time phenomenal restoration of dispersed ancient Israeli Jews to their prophetically promised Promise Land for these end of the Gentile age times to the list of corroborated evidence of the creator, Jehovah, the Biblical one and only god.Archeology: ICR, Moller et al to cite a couple of many, have cited evidence None dare admit lest they become accountable to a higher power are just one more of the many evidences creationists can cite.This is where creationists and secularists interpret some of the same data according to the hypothesis which they begin from. One sees what is observed from their perspective an another from theirs.Culturally: Corroborate all of the above with the observed phenomena of religion. Nearly all cultures in all of recorded human history have had a religious bent, involving fear, awe and worship, due to the belief that higher intelligence exists in the Universe than what we humans have.I and others have cited the gap between the animals and human-kind. Biblically this is explained in that we were designed creatures, imaging our designer.Our intelligence is substantially higher enough than that of the most intelligent other life that we have the ability to manage all other life, taming the wild, slaughtering for food, training them for beasts of burden, etc.Again, this is all cited in the Biblical record, stating that Adam should have rule over the animal kingdom and cultivate the plant kingdom, etc.Phenomena of good and/vs evil relative to higher powers existing in the Universe, a good creator/designer ruling and managing the Universe and an evil force/devil; one to be feared and (abe: worshipped, able to bless and to curse; the other, literally raising hell in the UniverseRegarding cursings and blessings, history attests to the fact that nations and cultures which practice idol worship, the occult, heathenism, atheism, etc have been the less blessed, prosperous and free, by and large, (I say 'by and large') than those nations which apply the Biblical (I say 'Biblical'), not necessarily religious, but Biblical fundamentals.I'm sure I've missed some evidences which corroborate the arsenal of evidence which creationists should be citing, whether or not the skeptics admit to it.

Hi, Butterfly. You need to re-read my message, to which your response applies. I acknowledged that once information and complexity is observed, evolutionists can make a weak argument for their perspective.You appear to have missed my important point, that your problem lies mostly in the abiogenesis and early stages of alleged evolution. I cited reasons why this makes the case for the creationist ID PoV.

You need to visit the Exodus debates for arguments pro and con regarding the land bridge. It is debatable. There are valid arguments explaining the reason for it's present depth. Nobody can deny the eroding energy of large bodies of swift moving sea water.
It has been explained that it relates to the flood evidence which creationists apply in the flood debates.Nothing has been empirically falsified or proven by either PoV.