... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate, First Half

Duplet: ... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate 1) First Half, 2) Second Half

Video watched so far

Debate #17: The Great Compromise
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5l16uavLL4

John Castro

hovind destroys this dude

[II Commandment censorship] this dude is fucking lame!!!!

geologic column is unreliable

romans 1 [dito]??? he is a follower of paul

I answer

+John Castro unreliable? [Geologic column, that is.]

Better say it doesn't even exist, as far as fossils are concerned:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

His reference to Romans 1 refers to Jaymen Dick claiming we must be able to look at nature and trust it - as a witness to its Creator.

Whereever in the video Dick said that as an argument against - for instance - starlight created in transit, here is my answer:

To Dick ... yes, we can LOOK at Creation and trust it.

Problem is when Heliocentrics stop looking and trusting.

Creation vs. Evolution : Kerry's 97 % had a precedent, TFP!
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/05/kerrys-97-had-precedent-tfp.html

To Kent Hovind

9:56

Alexandrian "manuscript" or rather version does NOT say anything about "age". It has day, just as any other ancient Bible.

For verse one it has "in the beginning" "en te(i) archê(i)" just as any other ancient Bible.

He tries, rather, to incorporate what he considers reliable secular knowledge into the sacred text itself.

In Isaiah, KJV has, I think, "round", where Douay Rheims has "globe". The Hebrew word does mean round, which could either be a flat circle or a globe, but DR incorporated reliable geographic knowledge, gained from Columbus and da Gama and a few more, into the Sacred Text, as far as the choice of translation goes.

And when it comes to originals having ambiguous meanings, I think that "Bible" you just showed depends more on supposed ambiguity of yôm than on anything about hemera as such.

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot
The Old (LXX) & New Testament Text of the 1st Edition of The Apostolic Bible Polyglot
Above [click to see]: The above is a sample of a page from The Apostolic Bible Polyglot 1st Edition Old (LXX) Testament.
http://www.septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/text.htm 

To Jaymen Dick

18:01 St Augustine and Origen believed in a time scale that was six days shorter.

They believed (though St Augustine at least did not do so consistently*) that the six days were one moment and "days" refers to angels looking at and apprehending that one moment. They apprehend very quickly, but the creation events were still so complex it took six consecutive (or similutaneous?) moments of their time seeing what God had done in one sole moment. Neither of them suggests remotely that Adam was not there at the beginning of creation (from day six, i e on their view from first moment). Neither of them suggests remotely that he was not 130 or - Alexandrian version - 230 years old when Seth was born to him.

There is an issue which Bible text you base the age of the earth on, Jews and Samarians obviously not favouring the LXX, Christians previous to Reformation nearly all doing so. But there is no issue on how you do it, and Ussher did on Masoretic text (or KJ translation thereof) exactly what St Jerome did on LXX text.

Dick, the pulling in of St Augustine and Origen here is dishonest.

* Or at least not bring it up every time he was writing on Genesis.

18:16, no, no, the difference between you and Hovind is VERY recent.

St Augustine and Origen are one Centimeter from Hovind and one Kilometer from you on the Chronological issue.

18:44, as I saw you referred to Luther's 95 theses, I do not know what Councils you count as correct.

The kind of Catholics who accept Vatican I and reject Vatican II have since the latter date had a few attempts of restoring a papacy free from Vatican II. Now, in Palmarian Catholicism, there is even a creed, which agrees with the One-Moment theory about creation, and also with the short timescale since. To a Palmarian, you and Hovind, apart from being heretics for being Protestants, are both heretics for believing God took as long as six days, but after that you are a heretic even more for believing in billions of years. Another attempt, councils were held in Elx, and I think those too would consider you, but in this case not Hovind as heretics, except insofar as you both are for Protestantism. If you accept Pope Michael - who was before election David Bawden, a man I came to know while being Palmarian, I am certain you would hardly qualify as clergy if you believed in billions of years. Or Heliocentrism, for that matter.

19:01 Genesis does not tell us anything about actual length of time - if you ignore the obvious about the context of yom, and also the NT exegesis of the context.

[Jaymen Dick has compared Bible to a far view of an impressionist painting and science to looking at brush strokes.]

20:34 Bible' contains some close ups. To correct wrong sci[ence]

21:01 "No doubt it was incredibly complex when He flung out the galaxies with His Word", you say?

How do you know there are galaxies? There is one Milky Way. It is called Galaxy in Greek. But how do you presume to know that the visible Milky Way is the thickest direction of the galaxy to which also stars outside the Milky Way as such belong, and how do you presume to know Andromeda and a few more like that are parallels to it?

Because Science gives a close up?

It doesn't. Even on Geocentric terms, we have reliable distances up to about Neptune perhaps, and those distances are HUGE. Meaning it is nonsense to call astronomy a close up.

"It would have been impossible to record that in any text book"?

It would at least have been as possible to record it in a book written down 3500 years ago as now. And since all complexity is elaboration of something simpler, it would even with terminological barriers have been possible to do so with some kind of exactness.

Now, Genesis DOES give us some kind of exactness, and it does not look like "flinging out the galaxies".

22:00 In the DAY when (Gen. 2:4). The exact reason why St Augustine opted for a one moment creation.

22:05 "Generations of time"? Not what it says.

These are THE GENERATIONS OF the Heavens and of the Earth.

In contexts about men, the word would mean the order in which they were born as sons to fathers to each other. In this context it means at least the order in which the things were created.

Meaning insects were created on day five or six, while plants were created day three and Sun and Moon on day four, not the other way round. Nor on the same day. This has the implication that days cannot be ages, since plants can hardly survive long ages without sunlight (unless you add the light before the sun was adequate to them) and most certainly not without pollination.

23:15

[As to claim Hosea 6:3 even with numbers attached to word "days" does not refer to definite periods of 24 hours.]

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
OSEE - Chapter 6
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id673.html

OSEE - Chapter 6:3 He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. We shall know, and we shall follow on, that we may know the Lord. His going forth is prepared as the morning light, and he will come to us as the early and the latter rain to the earth.

Ver. 3. Third. In a short time the Lord will easily set us free. But the prophet refers more directly to the resurrection of the faithful, and of Christ, Ephesians ii. 5., and 1 Corinthians xv. 4. (Calmet)

St. Paul mentions the third day according to the Scriptures, which nowhere else so clearly specify it. (Worthington) See St. Jerome; St. Cyrpian; Sanct.[Sanctius?] 9.

Know. Hitherto we have been reproached with voluntary ignorance in adoring idols, chap. iv. 6. We will amend.

His, Christ's.

Rain. It falls only in autumn and in spring, Deuteronomy xi. 14. (Calmet)

[Gives parallel:]

1 Corinthians xv. 4.

1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 15:4
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id176.html

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures:

[Gives parallel:]

4: Jonas ii. 1.

But cross reference to Osee (Hosea) might have been added.

24:01 Dick mentioned 15,000 species of land animals.

[And calculated that if Adam had named each, in 2 seconds, it would have taken him ten hours.]

Does Biblical Hebrew have 15,000 names for current species of land animals?

How many species or even genera of sauropods are described by Behemoth? And how many genera are described by Leviathan, starting with T Rex, adding Allosaurus, then there was another one recently found ... you get the picture.

Of course, Adam's and Noah's Hebrew would have included words for Cangaroo and Koala and even Platypus which were lost before Bible was written down because Hebrews post-Babel did not get to Australia during OT. After James Cook is of course another matter.

24:47 distant star light problem ... falls down for such a little detail like if these distances are really secure.

They have some problems even on Heliocentric assumptions.

If we stay with Geocentric data without reinterpreting these in Heliocentric ways, the distances are "pure moonshine" - or less secure, since Moon Shine does give us a clue about angles of the sides Sun-Moon to Earth-Moon in triangulation. But a star moved 0.76 arc seconds does NOT involve more than that one angle without any side. It is not even simultaneous.

Just before 25:14 creating star light in transit would be a giant deception.

OK, creating us on a huge object that feels like staying same place but is really in a vast and fast orbit is somehow not?

To Kent Hovind

26:14 ... sigh ... you really feel a need to establish possibility of wrongness by taking sides for the Moderns in Galileo case?

Neither diagram shows the belief defended by St Robert Bellarmine against Galileo.

Check out Tychonian system, will you. Moon, Sun, Fix stars all move around Earth. On a daily basis, but different speeds which leave Sun and Moon lagging behind and making full circle of Zodiak in year or month. BUT Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and so on, in their turn move arund the Sun.

For your argument it would have been enough to say that EITHER all scientists were wrong back then OR all are so now.

26:59 William Herschel ... according to your own statement on list - probably believed in an old-earth.

I e, distant starlight problem was there for him once he started guessing those gigantic inflated distances within the cosmos.

Does that suggest sth to you?

To me it does. Accept distant starlight problem OR ditch that large cosmos pseudo-science. I recommend the latter. It involves ditching Galileo.

28:39 January vs June.

Heliocentric scenario: earth is moving. You have one known side (Earth in January/Earth in June) and two known angles (On Earth in January between star and Earth in June, on Earth in June between star and Earth in January).

Geocentric scenario: earth is NOT moving. That means the star is. You have exactly one known angle (On Earth between star in January and star in June).

You said yourself, quite correctly, you need either one side and two angles or two sides and one angle to figure out the rest.

30:11 if you give 20 light years per parallax trigonometry (remember, this is Heliocentric scenario), they are taking the stars within that diameter and looking for types and researching other distances based on apparent size by size of the type.

For "real far off" there are even other methods.

Don't give even 20 light years in parallax trigonometry, don't give them the Heliocentric scenario.

33:05 light having different speeds - acceptable if it can be shown.

The articles you referred to could of course also be wrong.

But starlight created in transit, that was what I believed much earlier, since reading Edgar Andrews, and since some have not grasped that now I have another Young Earth solution, some Old Earthers have prayed (it seems) I should be confronted with the problem with that.

Any star just constant. No problem. But a nova occurring before creation?

If a star starts shining that was not there before - no problem. The light could have been created in transit. But if a star stops shining at a distance where its few millennia of shining on earth would all have occurred before Earth was created? That would contradict its being created on Day four. One solution is, it is not that far away in the first place.

Zero parallax showing not implying infinite distance, but more like no angel moving the star in parallactic ways. Though it may still be moved by angels in ways corresponding to the observation called aberration. Then the show of parallax was on their part intended to show we are neither dealing with a uniform parallax, nor with an aberration and no more. Now there is negative parallax to show parallax is not parallax. BUT some Heliocentrics still wilfully ignore that, most are just ignorant of that fact.

Before we continue with astronomy

Two comments pertaining to Kent and to either one on subject.

I

Hovind quotes: We can also find absolute ages by comparing a star's colour and brightness with those in stellar evolution models ... Discover, sept. 2003 pg. 17 (I corrected an Unenglish spelling for ya folks!)

Well, THOSE are also involved in stellar sizes and therefore in stellar distance beyond what they consider safe to calculate by parallax and trigonometry.

So, scrap the 15 billion light years' distance.

II

Other explanation for Red Shift.

If a light source circles around anything measuring or capturing it, it seems the faster it goes, the redder it is. Might account for some, on any Geocentric assumption, cannot it?

To Jaymen Dick

37:53 Dick supposes we know one side involved in the triangle for stellar parallax.

That equals the Heliocentric assumption that Earth is moving around the Sun and that therefore its distance to Sun added it its distance to Sun six months later is a real part of the triangle.

Or if you prefer, that known distance to Sun involved in a triangle Earth - Star - Sun really involves the angle of parallax.

But there is one extremely important thing about small angles of parallax. We are not measuring them as in a microscope. We are not measuring even alpha Centauri (largest angle of positive parallax) as an angle directly observable as such. It is an angle determined by comparison. Like in comparing "aberration angles" with some variation to the standard aberration - or like comparing to other stars.

That in turn means we no more know this star has a certain angle of parallax than we know "aberration" is uniform or the other stars are not moving.

41:59 "A small very young Universe does limit God"

No. God is no less glorious in creating a mosquito than an elephant. God is no less glorified in the soul of St James the Short than in the soul of St James the Tall. God is no less glorified in the soul of the young disciple St John than in the soul of the old disciple St Peter. God is no less glorified in the lives of Mayflies than in the lives of Turtles.

God being INFINITE is as INFINITELY "larger" than a large universe as than a small universe. If largeness were even an appropriate category.

Muslims say "God is greater" and that might refer to largeness, but St John says "God is greater than thy heart."

42:22 "And the Universe is just a reflection of that" [Of God's infinite power and wisdom.]

Well, but if so, just a very minuscule reflection of that. In other words, its size or age are not meant to indicate God's. They may suggest it by being larger than ours, but not indicate it.

42:40 "It should break your mind to try to get it all in"

Why would God delight in breaking minds?

Dick showing one list of refutations is not reading the third ( 43:06 )

"If fainter objects were really as close as suggested, the majority would be so small as to be completely incapable of shining."

Mr Dick did not read that one, but it interests me.

I have come across one more detailed version of the argument, in which it is "stars must have more mass than Jupiter, or Jupiter would have self-ignited as they".

The assumption is not so much about an ongoing fusion being impossible (in that case CERN would be wasting tax money for all of Europe - which might be the case anyway).

The assumption in that detailed version is rather that fusion, having originated on the Laplace scenario, must have had such and such a mass or they would not have started the fusion process.

I do not know - yet - if that is how Mr. Dick would support the quoted argument (if he supports it), but if not, I would like to know his version.

My answer to the other one on that topic is that it started out assuming neither God Himself nor any angel assigned with the stars lit them. It is therefore based on methodological atheism.

44:42 How do you propose to measure a DISTANCE via red shift?

I thought it reflected speed away from us. Except of course it could also reflect angular speed around us, in the daily rotation of the Universe.

49:01 Carnivores and herbivores.

Textually in Holy Writ, all animals seem to have been herbivores before the Fall.

Exegetically, some Church Fathers do take that literally. Others say things like wolves got to eat rabbits when Adam decided. Even so, no rabbit would have simply died from a disease. Which would have been unnecessary suffering and waste.

Scientifically, teeth can change in microevolutionary context (see Galapagos finches), and creatures with carnivorous teeth have been seen to be exclusively vegetarian.

To Capacity of Exactness of Biblical Terminology as Compared to Scientific

Before break in 56:47 - there are things which not only Bible is not directly adressing as scientists do today, but that if it adressed them at all, it would probably not be same terminology.

Behemoth and Leviathan being dinosaurs we could call Brontosaurus or Diplodocus and Tyrannosaurus or Allosaurus are points mentioned by Hovind.

Myself I have guessed that "waters above the firmament" may mean there was hydrolysis on day II, the firmament has lots of O2 and is known as atmosphere, and waters above it would more typically be H2 (and include future He as stars on day IV started out with lots of H2). Because Biblical Hebrew has no term specific to Hydrogen as opposed to both air and water. And H2 is "instant water" if you add O2 and a spark. And you cannot breathe in pure H2.

BUT a thing like "millions of years" is not same category.

The Bible does use the phrase "thousands of thousands and ten thousands of ten thousands" and obviously it has the word for year. So, if it had been accurate, it would not have been a terminological impossibility.

That is another matter than silence of the Bible.

Holy Writ is largely silent about what happened in Nod. We can see it got worse, first ruler got revenge sevenfold, seventh ruler seventyfold for any injury. There was also a general worsening of the moral climate. But if gene guns existed, the Bible and Book of Henoch are not very explicit about it. Nor totally opaque. "Sinned with every creature" need not refer solely to lust and cruelty, it can refer to genetic manipulation. And this one being NOT directly mentioned in Holy Writ, so as to avoid giving evil men ideas.

In the site Bible Code Wisdom I used to be able to find "free masons" with equidistant letters for each word, and first hit was starting at Nodian end of dynasty (or recorded such) and ending with "all flesh was corrupt" verse. Another decription that could mean nothing had escaped genetic manipulation.

How would an average reader interpret?

58:58 "they would also interpret many other passages of the Bible wrong, most likely".

The Bible does not say that an enquirer coming to the Bible without previous discipleship will interpret anything wrong. It does say he will not find everything immediately understandable. As the Ethiopian Eunuch found out.

It does however say that there are passages so obscure that "unstable" (that does not imply lack of previous discipleship) will "twist them" (which is another thing than interpreting something wrong in good faith). And this does not come from total lack of previous discipleship, but of unsteadiness of some who rebel against previous discipleship.

Like, for instance, Henry VIII and Martin Luther, Calvin and Beza, and a few more like those. Those were NOT promoting God's will or truth. Not even Melanchthon.

This means that a prima facie likelihood that an enquirer unfamiliar would easily come up with a certain interpretation and hardly any other, is prima facie an argument against qualifying that interpretation as wrong. There could be things one got wrong due to infamiliarity with social conditions when the texts were written. But more probably that would be lacunae and not real positive errors. Lacunae like not getting certain hints about papacy, because one does not know what stewards did back then.

Apocalypse 7:1 and Flat Earth Debate

59:45 Apocalypse 1:7 (7:1) is equally functionable if there is a limited "world" (in the sense of inhabited and civilised world) which is only a four cornered part of a globe.

I take the four corners to be English and Japanese corners in the North, South African and Singapurian/Australian corners in the South, as Americas and NZ were perhaps inhabited by cruel empires building big monuments, but hardly by civilised men like Romans. Or connected to other men.

[Jaymen Dick has said Luther and Calvin took Apocalypse 7:1 as proof text of flat earth.]

1:00:11 The Church as a whole - that is the Catholic Church - was not flat earthed.

Catholics were usually scholastics as to theology.

These were usually in agreement with Aristotle the earth was a globe.

If as you say Luther and Calvin defended a flat earth, this was their punishment for twisting scripture in other passages. Precisely at a time when a round globe was being discovered geographically.

As to Geocentrism, have you ANY scientific proof against it?

[He wagered no one in audience agreed Earth was flat or static in the centre of the Universe - Ps 104 had been discussed as well.]

1:00:30 I do not believe the earth is flat, I do believe the sun goes around the earth each day. Lagging behind the zodiak, so as to "go around the zodiak" each year.

1:01:08

"The fact that other passages in the Bible are obviously figurative ..." I do not think either Geocentric or Flat Earth passages are. "Flat Earth passages" are misunderstood but literal. Geocentric passages are literal, and rightly understood to be Geocentric.

[Hovind asked Dick if God COULD have created the world as literally stated and then stated it.]

"God could have created Adam blue" argument ... "yes, God could have done many things, but there is not enough evidence or the evidence doesn't support ..."

As to evidence for God creating Adam blue, there is zero. Not prima facie, not hinted, not confirmed in other passages.

As to God creating everything in six days (except individuals formed after prototypes made in the six days) there is prima facie evidence, it hints at other things and other things hint back at it, it is directly confirmed also in other passages.

In other words, it is totally dishonest to compare that to God creating Adam blue.

"God could have created in one moment, God could have created in milions of years" ...

For the one moment scenario you do have St Augustine at times (especially books 5 - 6 of De Genesi ad Literam Libri XII, less, if at all, De Civitate). He in turn does base it on the verse Genesis 2:4.

Saying that this warrants one departure from six days and so also opposite one is warranted is idiotic.

When truth is between two extremes, it is not equidisant from them. We eat meat of animals but not of men. One could imagine two more simplistic and thoroughgoing approaches, but vegetarians are not as bad as cannibals, if you please.

So, supposing for a moment the six days could be the truth, and that the one moment departure from it is licit, it does not follow that the billions of years departure from them is licit too. Hence, this approach stinks of dishonesty.

In fact, when I was in a Lutheran youth group, there were things I would take literally and others would answer by this kind of approach. Genesis and the Words of Institution at the First Eucharist. In the second context, the anger at the dishonesty made me a Catholic.

Kent Hovind gets allegory somewhat wrong

1:04:57 "Why would God start off with an allegory, how could we trust any of the book?"

Allegoric truth does not imply literal non-truth.

John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is literally not true. Also, it is allegorically non-true insofar as it calls Papacy an evil giant (of course that could be prophetic about Bergoglio, that is another matter).

Genesis is allegorically true, since Christ is really the Second Adam or Last Adam. And the new Isaac, who carried the wood for his sacrifice. And the new Melchisedec. And ... so on.

But this does not preclude it is also literally true.

God differs from Bunyan not only in knowing what truth there is to be provided by an allegory, but also in being almighty and able to give the allegory the ontological status of reality, where Bunyan could only write his allegory as a fable.

Does God have wings, and if so is He a bird?

1:06:48

Body parts of God. Not JUST about allegorical rendering of divine attributes. ALSO a foreshadowing of Incarnation.

On the Cross, Christ was holding His arms stretched out as a bird taking a long flight on its wings. He was holding out His "wings" over His Blessed Mother Mary, His Beloved Disciple St John, and over Adam who was buried under Calvary, and presumably over Eve too, buried same spot.

"Under his wings" we find peace is a parallel to "by his wounds" He hath healed us. It refers to literal wounds in Isaiah, and in the Psalm it refers to literal arms held out as wings. Even small boys when pretending to be birds will hold out their arms and call them wings. One day, and it was the Sixth Day of the New Creation, God's or God the Father's Eternal "Little Boy" honoured His Eternal Father. Before that Day, we were heading for damnation, since that Day we have redemption. That is what the Psalmist talks about.

Did Apostles reach ALL the world?

1:10:36 Far East.

St Thomas the Twin had obviously reached India.

Americas ... I would say these were outside the "four corners". Or else, the four corners are of double application.

NW and NE corner angels together keeping in N Wind both from Eurasia and from America. NW corner angel with SW corner angel both keeping W Wind from Europe and Africa and E Wind from America. ... See where I am heading?

But as to Apostles, that would be more properly within the Old World and its Four Corners.

Also, there has been some doubt about what alignment they are. Here is the Catholic Bishop Witham, cited in Haydock comment:

Ver. 1. I saw four Angels, &c. Though some understand here evil spirits, whom God may make use of as instruments to punish the wicked, yet we may rather, with other interpreters, understand good angels sent from God to guard and protect his faithful servants both from evil spirits and wicked men. (Witham)

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
APOCALYPSE - Chapter 7
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id293.html

Kent Hovind actually thinks people came to Americas earlier than thought.

In itself that would be possible, it is not theologically wrong either.