Is YE Creationist Kent Hovind right?

[wellwisher]

People are as different from (say) a cow, than that cow is from a panther. Yet they are all mammal. A cow is a cow. A panther is a panther, a human being is a human being. And luckily this evidenced fact does not need kent hovinds or your approval.

One problem with the debate between creation and evolution has to do with science not being able to define consciousness in a consensus way. Science is better at physical biology, with cataloging often based on human subjectivity. For example, lions and tigers are classified as two separate species, even though they can cross breed. This line in the sand was arbitrary and subjective. Now we use DNA to separate species, but the lion and tiger cataloging tradition still stands.

If we include consciousness and not just biology, humans are different from others animals in that we are no longer under just natural instinct. Our bodies may stem from the apes, but human consciousness is way different fro any ape. There is a huge gap at that level. We have choice and will and can built cities and control the environment. No ape has even done this before, so we ddi not base this on them. A major change in consciousness is what the bible is talking about. This does not fit the atheist narrative, so it is dismissed. Atheists prefer to stick with physical biology and ignore consciousness. Science cannot define consciousness, so they do not wish to go down this road since there is no light of science. This is the road that Creation speaks of.

If you look at Book of Genesis, the second half deals with genealogy, from Adam to the ancient present. They called this genealogy, based on blood line. Blood line is similar to what we today call genetics. Genealogy is based on biology; reproduction and passing on genetics. The ancients were well aware of the biological connection to reproduction and offspring. This is not new.

Very early on in Genesis, Adam is unique in that he is not created by any known biological means; natural or manmade. He is created from the dust of the earth and not by any known form of biological reproduction. This would imply starting at abiogenesis which science cannot fully define. Eve, on the other hand, comes from Adam's rib. In modern times this could be explained as a type of cloning process from bone marrow and stem cells. This is also biological, but in a more modern technological way, that departs from natural biology. It is about human consciousness and manmade biology. It appears to be describing the impact of consciousness, will and choice on a biological outcome.

After this unique non-biological and semi-biological beginning, there is some natural biological reproduction; Cain,Abel and Seth. Later on, there is mention of another form of reproduction connected to virgin births. The angels mate with human females, to create the men of renown; the basis for many real people who would become mythological characters. This appears to describe consciousness causing pregnancies. Jesus was also from a virgin birth. This describes a spiritual or consciousness element acting for half the biological role. However, biology still drives the dynamics after fertilization. The ancient description includes things that lie outside the blood lines of biology.

Science can show that the invention of writing appears about 6000 years ago, which is the same time frame as the bible claim for Genesis. The question is, would that pivotal invention be enough to alter natural pre-human consciousness; animal instincts of the ape, into something new; new type of consciousness, apart from natural instinct? Adam born of the dust of the earth seems to imply a man writing on stone tablets and internally evolving his consciousness via the new unnatural invention. One day this training culminates and he awakens, as the operating system of his brain updates; living soul.

If you look at cell phones, these devices; invention, have altered the way many humans react to the environment. We stop looking, thinking and analyzing reality and now depend much more on something outside us, to think for us and tell us. This voice external is often based on based illusions and not just the truth; fake news and biased political lenses. The invention of writing would have been even more profound in terms outcome. It would have caused a new type of personality to appear.

The tradition seems to suggest that Adam teaches Eve and she forms from his rib. Ribs protect the heart. This symbolized Adam brought Eve along for the ride, before he got too far ahead; alone again with his new POV. She learns and undergoes changes in the her brain's operating system. The natural humans are still all around, since this neural change was not based on biological causes but based on conscious effort. They are the first two. If there were only two cells phones on the earth, the dependency and obsession conditioning would only appear with two; first born.

In the story of Adam and Eve and their children, Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of the soil; farmer and Abel was a herder of animals; migratory pre-human. The biological children of Adam and Eve, came out half natural; Abel, and half semi-modernized; Cain. Cain had more propensity to learn writing and as he matured, saw himself as different. When Cain kills Abel, this symbolized that farming supersedes the instincts of migratory herding; Civilization was here to stay. Consciousness, in mass, began to change into the modern ways of civilization. Civilization creates an unnatural environment where the old instincts no longer apply, allowing consciousness via laws carved into stone, to fill in the blanks and alter behavior; repression of instinct,

Cain is sent away and he breeds with the pre-human females, since both have human DNA from a biological POV. However, Cain is more modern in the sense of his consciousness. He teaches and expands civilization to areas nearby where he settles. Through many generations of teaching and breeding the new consciousness has natural selection, and it starts to dominate humanity. Adam and Eve is where this all began; tablets of stone. The old biological pre-humans, connected more directly to the apes, were not selected and they soon disappear.

I try to use science and the wisdom of the bible to draw a line.

 

[questfortruth]

I hope you don't mind if I am a little harsh

Be blessed, my friend. Christians doubt, that I am Christian. Scientists doubt, that I am one of them.
Is it my personal curse or bad luck with this world?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have completed secondary school with Gold Medal, University with Cum Laude, I was lector and researcher at University, I am author in Physical Review E.

Then why do you find it so completely impossible to understand the simplest facts about Evolution -- like dogs didn't come from cats, but both share a common ancestor that was neither? Because you do precisely the same thing over and over and over again, are shown your error endlessly, but your vaunted genius seems unable to grasp the idea at all.

Sort of astounding, really.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One problem with the debate between creation and evolution has to do with science not being able to define consciousness in a consensus way. Science is better at physical biology, with cataloging often based on human subjectivity. For example, lions and tigers are classified as two separate species, even though they can cross breed. This line in the sand was arbitrary and subjective. Now we use DNA to separate species, but the lion and tiger cataloging tradition still stands.

If we include consciousness and not just biology, humans are different from others animals in that we are no longer under just natural instinct. Our bodies may stem from the apes, but human consciousness is way different fro any ape. There is a huge gap at that level. We have choice and will and can built cities and control the environment. No ape has even done this before, so we ddi not base this on them. A major change in consciousness is what the bible is talking about. This does not fit the atheist narrative, so it is dismissed. Atheists prefer to stick with physical biology and ignore consciousness. Science cannot define consciousness, so they do not wish to go down this road since there is no light of science. This is the road that Creation speaks of.

If you look at Book of Genesis, the second half deals with genealogy, from Adam to the ancient present. They called this genealogy, based on blood line. Blood line is similar to what we today call genetics. Genealogy is based on biology; reproduction and passing on genetics. The ancients were well aware of the biological connection to reproduction and offspring. This is not new.

Very early on in Genesis, Adam is unique in that he is not created by any known biological means; natural or manmade. He is created from the dust of the earth and not by any known form of biological reproduction. This would imply starting at abiogenesis which science cannot fully define. Eve, on the other hand, comes from Adam's rib. In modern times this could be explained as a type of cloning process from bone marrow and stem cells. This is also biological, but in a more modern technological way, that departs from natural biology. It is about human consciousness and manmade biology. It appears to be describing the impact of consciousness, will and choice on a biological outcome.

After this unique biological beginning, there is some natural biological reproduction; Cain,Abel and Seth. Later from there is mention of another form of reproduction connected to virgin births. The angels mate with human females, to create the men of renown; the basis for many real people who would become mythological characters. This appears to describe consciousness causing pregnancies. Jesus was also from a virgin birth. This describes a spiritual or consciousness element acting for half the biological role. However, biology still drives the dynamics after fertilization. The ancient description includes things tea lie outside the blood lines of biology.

Science can show that the invention of writing appears about 6000 years ago, which is the same time frame as the bible claim for Genesis. The question is, would that pivotal invention be enough to alter natural pre-human consciousness; animal instincts of the ape, into something new; new type of consciousness, apart from natural instinct? Adam born of the dust of the earth seems to imply a man writing on stone tablets and internally evolving his consciousness via the new unnatural invention. One day this training culminates and he awakens, as the operating system of his brain updates; living soul.

If you look at cell phones, these devices; invention, have altered the way many humans react to the environment. We stop looking, thinking and analyzing, and now depend much moron something outside us, to think for us. This external is often based on based illusions and not just the truth; fake news and biased fads. The invention of writing would have been even more profound in terms outcome. It would have caused a new type of personality to appear.

Adam teaches Eve and she forms from his rib. Ribs protect the heart. This symbolized Adam brought Eve along for the ride, before he got too far ahead; alone again. She learns and undergoes her change in the her brain's operating system. The natural humans are still all around, since this change was not biological but based on conscious effort. They are the first two. If there were only two cells phones on the earth, the dependency and obsession conditioning would only appear there; first born.

In the story of Adam and Eve and their children, Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of the soil; farmer and Abel was a herder of animals; migratory pre-human. The biological children of Adam and Eve, came out half natural; Abel, and half semi-modernized; Cain. Cain had more propensity to learn writing and as he matured saw himself as different. When Cain kills Abel, this symbolized that farming supersedes the instincts of migratory herding; Civilization was here to stay. Consciousness, in mass, began to change into the modern ways of civilization. Civilization creates an unnatural situation where instincts no longer apply allowing consciousness via laws carved into stone, to fill in the blanks.

Cain is sent away and he breeds with the pre-human females, since both have human DNA from a biological POV. However, Cain is more modern in the sense of his consciousness. He teaches and expands civilization to other areas nearby. Through many generations of teaching and breeding the new consciousness has natural selection, and it starts to dominate humanity. Adam and Eve is where this all began; tablets of stone. The old biological pre-humans connected more directly to the apes, were not selected and disappeared.

I try to use science and the wisdom of the bible to draw a line.

You may think that you use science, but if you suppose for an instant that humans are conscious in a way that animals are not, you are completely mistaken. Humans can use abstract thought and reason in a way that animals cannot, but that has nothing to do with being conscious. Your cat is just as conscious of the fact that you stepped on its tail are you are conscious of the fact that it bit you in response.

 

[questfortruth]

but your vaunted genius seems unable to grasp the idea at all.

I have completed school as one of the best biologists of the class. And as believer I understand, why Theory of Evolution (known as Theory of Darwin) can not be removed from classes. The theory is very useful.

 

[Nimos]

It is your information how science is studying spirituality. But this study is with agenda to demonstrate "absence" of spiritual realm - agenda to prove the core "assumption" of Atheism.

So if a study doesn't give the result you want, its because they want to demonstrate the absent of spirituality? That makes it nearly impossible to study then, if any studies that doesn't support the idea is considered invalid. So if you believe this to be the case about science, why would you want it to work on it then? Also one could simply try to repeat the experiment and see if they get the same result. You or any religious group are free to do this. Try to read this and see if that is what you mean. To me those experiments seems to be done as one would expect them to be.

Does Prayer Work?
Research consistently shows that prayer can have numerous benefits. For example, prayer can be a solid source of self-soothing and self-comfort when one is experiencing pain, coping with loss, or dealing with traumatic circumstances. Prayer can also be of benefit as a form of concentrated mental motivation for achieving personal goals. Prayer can also help people focus on the well-being of others. And, of course, when one finds oneself in a hopeless or helpless situation, with no real options, no clear solution, and no actionable form of alleviation, then prayer is something to engage in to—at the very least—make one feel like one is doing at least something in the face of dire circumstances.

Clearly, people pray because it makes them feel better, or makes them feel hope, or makes them feel love, or makes them feel just a welcomed hair shy of being utterly powerless. So, concerning all of the above, it can be said that prayer works.

But when it comes to prayer as a form of asking for something from a divine source and then getting it — there is simply no empirical evidence that such mental messaging to an invisible deity works. All stories of “answered prayers” are merely anecdotal, and nothing more.

The scientific study of the efficacy of prayer has been going on for at least 150 years, starting with the work of British statistician Francis Galton. Back in the 1870s, Galton wondered about the fact that the British Royal Family received far more prayers on its behalf than everyone else, since praying for the royal family was a structured part of Sunday services throughout Great Britain. Shouldn’t they, then, be of better health and live longer than average British citizens who didn’t receive such prayers?

Of course, Galton found that the royal family did not, on average, live longer or enjoy better health than anyone else, despite all the prayers on their behalf. Galton also prayed over randomly selected parcels of land, but found that his prayers had no effect on which sections of land bore more abundant plant life.

Fast forward to 2006, the year the Templeton Foundation funded the most rigorous, empirically sound study of the possible positive effects of prayer ever conducted in the history of science. The study — which received over $2.4 million dollars in funding — was double-blind and involved a control group and an experimental group.

The researchers randomly divided up over 1,800 coronary bypass heart surgery patients, from six different hospitals, into three groups: the first group had Christians praying for them; Christians prayed that the selected heart patients would have “a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications”—and the patients in this group were told that people might or might not be praying for them. The second group of heart patients was not prayed for, but they were also told that they might or might not have people praying for them. The third group was prayed for, and these patients were told that they were definitely being prayed for. The Christians that were doing all the praying were given the first name and last initial of the specific patients they were to pray for.

The result: There was virtually no difference in the recovery trajectories of each group, with all three groups experiencing more or less the same rates and levels of complications. The only minor differences that did arise actually worked against the prayers: 18 percent of the patients who had been prayed for suffered major complications such as strokes or heart attacks, compared to only 13 percent of the patients who did not receive any prayers.

There was also a Duke University study, back in 2003. In this three-year experiment, nearly 750 heart patients in nine different hospitals, all slated for coronary surgery, were prayed for by a variety of religious people, including Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews. The results of this double-blind experiment were similarly conclusive: there were no significant differences in the recoveries or health outcomes of those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. Other studies have all found the same results.

In sum, no empirical, scientifically rigorous evidence has ever been brought forth proving the power of prayer. And just think about it: if praying produced the prayed-for outcomes, no prayed-for mothers would ever die of breast cancer, no prayed-for teenagers would ever die on the operating table, no prayed-for dogs or cats would ever fail to return home, and tens of millions of praying people would never die from starvation resulting from a lack of rain. Three hundred million people have died from smallpox in the 20th century alone — clearly, all of their prayers, and their parents’ prayers, and their children’s prayers, and their spouses’ prayers, did not have the desired healing effect.

None of the above means, of course, that people don’t experience wondrous, inexplicable things all the time, or that every now and then, someone’s prayers appear to have been answered. Such things happen frequently: a wife is told that her dying husband has a zero chance of recovery. Prayers are prayed. And then—voila—the husband suddenly recovers, astonishing the doctors who are left dumbstruck, unable to explain his recovery. It’s nothing short of a miracle.

While these things do happen, what is far and away more common is that the husband dies—a heap of fervent prayers notwithstanding. And also note that for every person who miraculously recovers, there’s another perfectly healthy person who suddenly, for no apparent reason, drops dead of some minor illness, or strange disease, or undetected aneurism, or stroke, or infection. Such is the precarious randomness of the human body and its functioning—people sometimes recover when all odds are against them, but more often than not, they don't.

Despite all of the evidence showing that prayers don’t work in the way they're intended, prayer is still what most humans do when there’s nothing left for them to do in dire, scary, or painful situations. And if it does provide them with even a modicum of comfort and hope during such times, so be it.

Does Prayer Work?

 

[shunyadragon]

What about his lectures?

His lectures only justify his religious agenda to reject science,

 

[questfortruth]

His lectures only justify his religious agenda to reject science,

I have completed school as one of the best biologists of the class. And as believer I understand, why Theory of Evolution (known as Theory of Darwin) can not be removed from classes. The theory is very useful.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have completed school as one of the best biologists of the class. And as believer I understand, why Theory of Evolution (known as Theory of Darwin) can not be removed from classes. The theory is very useful.

Do you have a degree in the biological sciences?

 

[questfortruth]

Do you have a degree in the biological sciences?

 

[shunyadragon]

So? Your response is "no comment" and a religious agenda so circular reasoning it bites you in the butt.

Again . . . Do you have a degree in the biological sciences?

 

[Colt]

It does study spirituality, but with agenda to prove atheism.



I have completed secondary school with Gold Medal, University with Cum Laude, I was lector and researcher at University, I am author in Physical Review E.

Atheism doesn't have anything to do with the facts of evolution or an old earth. The problem with the Bible is that the Israelites story of origins was converted into The Word of God which stunted growth in understanding for believers.

 

[questfortruth]

The problem with the Bible

Bible is fact. But any fact needs interpretation. Interpretation needs interpreter. Religions are Bible interpreters. Hence, correct interpretation has correct religion and vice versa.

 

[ChristineM]

One problem with the debate between creation and evolution has to do with science not being able to define consciousness in a consensus way

So has creation defined consciousness in any way whatsoever?

Science has made a lot of progress in understanding brain activity but is not there yet. Unlike creation, science has not given up on the basis if confirmation bias

Science is better at physical biology, with cataloging often based on human subjectivity.

Always based on the scientific method using evidence, measurement, observation etc. Anything based on subjectivity is classed as such and not taken as hard evidence.

For example, lions and tigers are classified as two separate species, even though they can cross breed. This line in the sand was arbitrary and subjective. Now we use DNA to separate species, but the lion and tiger cataloging tradition still stands.

Although lions and tigers are classified as different species they are so closely related that they can interbreed. There are several species that are genetically close enough to produce viable offspring, it to s no line in the sand but exceptions to a general rule

If we include consciousness and not just biology, humans are different from others animals in that we are no longer under just natural instinct

Speak for yourself, do you naturally go to sleep when tired, eat when hungry? Many other animals also can override natural instinct.

Our bodies may stem from the apes, but human consciousness is way different fro any ape

You citation for this please

There is a huge gap at that level.

Not so huge, biologists estimate several animals will be entering their version of the stone age within the next few thousand years

We have choice and will and can built cities and control the environment. No ape has even done this before.

And termites don't do this?
At least one ape has.

This does not fit the atheist narrative,

What is the atheist narrative?
Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you added to that is nothing more than bigotry and personal ego massage.

Atheist prefer to stick with physical biology and ignore consciousness Science cannot define consciousness, so they do not wish to go down this road.

See above.

If you look at Book of Genesis, the second half deals with genealogy

Abd is totally/genetically impossible. But feel free to believe whatever you want

The ancients were well aware of the biological connection to reproduction and offspring

No they weren't, they had an idea that planting semen in female could often produce offspring. They had no idea whether one male ir another was the father other tjan wishful thinking

Very early on in Genesis, Adam is unique in that he is not created by any known biological means;

God magic, how wonderful, also genetically impossible but hey ho...

Eve, on the other hand, comes from Adam's rib.

And the mass mutations of breeding with someone of identical genetic makeup would be evident in the 1st generation and the extinction of the human racebwould soon follow.

Following that i skipvto the end because it's the same old same old.

I try to use science and the wisdom of the bible to draw a line.

Not very well it seems

 

[wellwisher]

Then why do you find it so completely impossible to understand the simplest facts Evolution -- like dogs didn't come from cats, but share a common ancestor that was neither? Because you do precisely the same thing over and over and over again, are shown your error endlessly, but your vaunted genius seems unable to grasp the idea at all.

Sort of astounding, really.

Wolves and German Shepherds are both dogs and both have canine DNA. They can interbreed. However, wolves have natural instinct and German Shepherd are domesticated and therefore each have a different operating systems for consciousness. There is a dividing line at the level of consciousness and not biology.

If we breed wolves and German Shepherds, the consciousness of the puppies shift closer to the wolves. They are harder to train and stay more wild. Nobody has been able to successfully breed a domesticated wolf-shepherd. However, domesticated dogs dominate the earth through manmade selection. Science does not know how to deal with consciousness so it is left out to stack the deck. Adam was the first domesticated human at the conscious level.

 

[questfortruth]

God magic

Police does not murder. But police executes.

God does not magic tricks. God is not magician.

God makes miracles.

 

[ChristineM]

Theory of Evolution (known as Theory of Darwin) can not be removed from classes. The theory is very useful.

And i trust that as a qualified scientist you also understand the meaning of scientific theory.

 

[questfortruth]

Science does not know how to deal with consciousness

"Science" knows what to do: Deny it exists.

 

[ChristineM]

Police does not murder. But police executes.

God does not magic tricks. God is not magician.

God makes miracles.

Call it what you will, its still magic

Oh and police have been know to murder. Look up the recent case of Sarah Everard

 

[ChristineM]

"Science" knows what to do: Deny it exists.

Bullpoop