Wednesday, August 7, 2013

... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)


1) Creation vs. Evolution : Can Evolutionists be a Laughing Stock?
2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind
3) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)
4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Hovind's Dissertation Not as Bad as its Critics on Rational Wiki Think
5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos
6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject
7) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject

Background on Kent Hovind and my reading / watching him:
It may be some of you who do not know of my theory of why Evolution (specifically of Mammals) from a common ancestor is impossible. Here is the presentation of a series of links, in a letter sent to Nature Genetics, but not published (as long as I kept checking):

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

Now, if you go to the first of the links thereon, Karyogrammata, you will on top of a very long message a series of links to subsections:

Creation vs. Evolution : Karyogrammata : Kent Hovind's list of chromosome numbers of different species, plus one other link

Kent on the former DrDino site made a pretty different usage of same information in same list. His argument was that "more chromosomes" = "more complex" = "more evolved" according to evolutionism, but that breaks down on fact that man has less chromosomes than rhino, and rhino less than tobacco plant.

My own argument from same list does not actually use the tobacco plant part.

It is more like "sure, a tobacco plant can have gotten octoploid without much difficulty, but that is not a mammal." Medical records have one boy born alive tetraploid, but who was born weak and infected and malformed and died within a year. Mother's immunity system did not help his tetraploid chromosome setup survive. Hope the poor boy, insofar as it was at all human, was baptised and got to Heaven. Otherwise tetraploids are usually aborted, make up 1/4 of spontaneous abortions. You get where I am hinting at?

And if you want to pursue that line of thought, click above links.

But what I cannot do is leaving Kent Hovind out of this after such a debt, so here are a few video's with among others Kent Hovind, and the theme is ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and Creation vs Evolution (containing links to five youtubes I commented on):
video commented on I:
EKrassner90 : Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs and the Bible part 1
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not agreeing with Hovind Sr on proper number of chapters in Book of Daniel.

Council of Trent defines - against Protestant reduced Daniel and Esther and seven books shorter - the Canon, and also that it is inerrant.

Kent Hovind disbelieves place in canon of chapter, but believes story.

Some "RC" clergy accept place in canon but believe it could be pious novel writing - as Tobith, as Jonah! ...

Who disobeys Trent less of the two categories?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Grendel was not a dragon in Beowulf, but a troll.

Maybe some kind of "homo monstruosus" (the poet called him Caines cynne - kin of Cain).

The dragon came later in Beowulf poem. Beowulf and Wiglaf together kill dragon, but Beowulf is also killed by the dragon.

I am a Swede with two great grand parents from Beowulf's home countries. Westrogothia. In Old English Geatena Lond. Land of Geats.
video commented on II:
Andrew Skegg : The National School Chaplaincy Program
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Dr Monica Thielking pleads for more school psychologists.

19th C, US or UK and Commonwealth (including back then Ireland): chaplains everywhere, school psychologists was an unknown concept.

End of 20th beginning of 21st C. school psychologists everywhere, chaplains quite a bit rarer.

Which of these times did the Columbine High School shooting with Klebold and his buddy occur?

Or similar events a bit earlier and a bit later? Eh?
video commented on III:
Ron Williams : Education Queensland defends NSCP chaplain organising 'Creation Science' lecture
Hans-Georg Lundahl
o ... k ...

If the lecturer had been invited by science teacher and been called Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss, would you have minded the least?

I have personally extracted a theoretical problem from a number of known biological facts, like immunity system in mammalian gestation and diverse number of chromosome pair among mammals, against evolution.

It has been repeated, PZM answered one of my readers or remote readers, and answered inadequately.

[On youtube I cannot link to anything, but here is a link on precisely that subject to my blog - to a kind of index link that in its turn links to three separate messages before itself:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

Was not published in Nature Genetics, as far as I checked up months afterwards. Note that I link to a post by P Z Myers, where the comments visible stop in 2009 - my comments started in 2011.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Might add the creationist got one info incorrectly and one correctly:

Norwegian Breivik, unlike what he stated, is not mainly a bomber, but a shooter.

He is however a Darwinist, a "cultural Christian" who wants real belief in Bible, like rejecting Evolution, banned, since he considers it close to the Islamists he hates and fears.

He is also a former Freemason, was excluded the day his superior in the lodge found out of the shooting. I e was still while preparing and committing his act.
video commented on IV:
EKrassner90 : Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs and the Bible part 2
two by Cody Seaton
Cody Seaton
This man is a convicted con-man. Why would anyone listen to him?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Convicted for tax fraud and for using a Doctor title he got from a university he recognised but the judges did not recognise.

So, your point is?

State authority a can accept registration of such and such a university and state authority be can condemn someone as a fraudster for using a doctor title from it?

Or tax fraudsters are dishonest about everything?

Or state authority c can tell one not to use form x and state authority d can convict someone for not using it?

Sez wht about his facts?
Cody Seaton
likouala swamp, I can not find anything on this place that doesn't have Kent Hovind listed in it. Is this place real or just a place he named?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Likouala Department"

Likouala is almost covered with dense and often flooded forests of lakes and very full of fish ponds. Its ground is argillaceous and sandy by places. The north of the department belongs to the mountainous Massif Oubanguien. [3] The shallow Lac Tele is 5 km across and circular in shape.

From wikipedia.

Part of "Republic of the Congo" or "Congo-Brazzaville".
video itself:
Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You don't get eternal life through Church, through baptism, through being good ..."

Well, why then did Jesus Christ found the Church, tell it to baptise, tell it to teach basically how to be good, i e to keep all that Christ commanded it?

He did that, so Church and Baptism and keeping Christ's commandments is important to get to Heaven, is important to get eternal life, precisely through Jesus Christ.

Usually one is a born again Christian the minute one is baptised - unless there is some hindrance, like an adult not really agreeing to get baptised or chosing the wrong Church because the one he really knows is right or should know if he had considered it through, is in some way too bothersome for him.

A little later "whosoever shall call etc shall be saved"

Douay-Rheims has 10:9-10

For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.

Comment: [9] Thou shalt be saved: To confess the Lord Jesus, and to call upon the name of the Lord (ver. 13) is not barely the professing a belief in the person of Christ; but moreover, implies a belief of his whole doctrine, and an obedience to his law; without which, the calling him Lord will save no man. St. Matt. 7. 21.

10:[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Comment: [15] Unless they be sent: Here is an evident proof against all new teachers, who have all usurped to themselves the ministry without any lawful mission, derived by succession from the apostles, to whom Christ said, John 20. 21, As my Father hath sent me, I also send you.


This makes the difference between defending creationism and defending non-Catholic views of salvation.

video commented on V:
djarm67 : Eric Hovind pwnd by 6th Grade Atheist
Khawar Asif
Are you saying that all of the languages spoken in the world today were created by God during the Tower of Babel incident? So English has been around for thousands of years and did not evolve? Interesting far as I know the countries in which these languages are spoken were not around so are you saying that people who speak Spanish all got together and decided to make a country and call is Spain because they already spoke Spanish? Are you serious?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not at all sure what he meant. [Trying to look it up, not citing other till I get context] It seems he was talking about written document. Or something.

But I am pretty sure what you mean.

Answer, as a linguist and a young earth creationist: God created at least 72 languages at Babel.

But "language change" (not exactly same concept of evolution) has been going on maybe before, certainly after, and has certainly after resulted in mixed languages from multiple origins and same language splitting into several and chronolects of same country changing
Khawar Asif
Thanks for your post. I have always been interested in the evolution of languages, though not formally. Wasn't the premise behind the "confusion of tongues" to stop the people being able to collaborate and communicate in the construction of the tower? Surely God would have known that the tower would not have reached any great height, definitely not into space - so there was no danger of it reaching Heaven. Also that within a short space of time people would still be able to communicate by learning other languages, so it seems like a futile attempt if the premise was correct. The story is however a good way for the authors to try to explain the various languages and dialects that existed at the time by writing a story and invoking a deity. Mark Pagel (an evolutionary biologist from Reading University) did some interesting research in tracing the Eurasiatic Superfamily of languages to a common mother tongue spoken around 15,000 years ago.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Rob Skiba II argues Nimrod and his pals were trying to build a stargate.

I feel more like it could have been an "early version of Cape Canaveral".

If "the top of the tower" should "reach heaven," maybe that top of the tower was meant to be a space ship.

But assuming the attempt was technologically futile anyway, it would have made its planners kind of omnipotent on earth, in human society.

With modern population space program takes a very much less portion of human effort than after Flood.

The break up of languages involved a break up of unified population and thus a loss of know how.

We know very well that languages can come about in other ways than by that miracle - Tolkien invented some, which implies the miracle was possible for God (if JRRT could invent two, God could invent 72), fashions change existing languages, and sometimes (as in English and Spanish) changes of fashion add up to new languages.

Does not disprove the story at all.
Khawar Asif
I thought you said you were a linguist! But you don't believe in the widely accepted theory of proto-languages and their descendants. You think that God created 72 languages, complete with syntax, grammar, vocuabulary and alphabet? And you think that languages evolved because of fashions changing? English derived from West Germanic and Spanish from Latin. Ok, I am outta here too...thanks for the chat.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That Spanish, French, Italian and between the Occitan ranging from Catalan to Ladino, and east of them Roumanian and West of the Portuguese all come from Latin I am well aware of.

I also just said: "fashions change existing languages, and sometimes (as in English and Spanish) changes of fashion add up to new languages."

You seem to see some contradiction that really is not there.

EVERY language is complete with syntax, morphology and vocabulary. Some have an alphabet on top of that.

This is also true for any Proto-Language, real or supposed.

Proto-Indo-European is not known, only reconstructed. If it was ever spoken it was certainly more complete than the reconstructions made so far.

Latin, certainly proto-language for Romance languages, possibly itself derived from Proto-Indo-European, is complete, and has an alphabet too.

Languages evolve for fashions changing - confer Sociolinguistics. Has been resumed by an English scholar, she is called Jean Aitchison and she is even Evolutionist. Her book in this question is called Language Change - Progress or Decay.

It is on Amazon.

Jean Aitchison : Language Change - Progress or Decay
Hans-Georg Lundahl (to video itself]
I do not agree with Hovind Jr that all certainty depends on revelation, if that were the case we would not know revelation if it hit us in the face.

I do not agree the young guy owned Eric either, since he had no reason to be sure there could be no evidence for God, unless he was - uncorrectly - trusting supposed evidence for another cosmology and on top of that of them excluding each other.

The "god" of theistic evolution is possible, if not likeable.

No comments: