Halleluja, I have seen the light

[prometheus]

I have found scienfic evidence for young earth creation. It is actually all in the bible, do you believe it?

Anyway, I found out about it browsing around Youtube:

Part 1, The Age of the Earth

Part 2, The Garden of Eden DVD

Part 3, Dinosaurs and the Bible

Part 4, Lies in the Textbooks

Part 5, The Dangers of Evolution

Part 6, The Hovind Theory

Sadly I can't find 'Part 7, Question and Answer Session'


I hope everyone will be enlightened by Dr. Hovind's his intelligence and wisdom.

[asyncopated]

Why do you torture me?  I watched the first part and could not stop cringing.  You know the  scene in jame bond where he is striped naked and gets his balls well ahem... this feels worse.  I feel defiled, even mentally raped by this tosser.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.  He has no freaking clue.

Ok, I'm going to cry myself to sleep now.

[prometheus]

Yes, it is amazing.

Luckely he will soon be jailed.

Actually, this was only aimed at creationists on this forum. I wonder if they buy what he says.

[ihatepop]

Thats it I'm outta here.

I wish that one day people who post religion threads can put a (r.) sign next to their topic title. I'll try my best to avoid them, as (r.) means 'religion', 'restricted', 'rats' and 'rrrrrrrrr'. (sound a crazy guy makes after reeding religious topics and posts.)

ihatepop

P.S.RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[asyncopated]

Thats it I'm outta here.

I wish that one day people who post religion threads can put a (r.) sign next to their topic title. I'll try my best to avoid them, as (r.) means 'religion', 'restricted', 'rats' and 'rrrrrrrrr'. (sound a crazy guy makes after reeding religious topics and posts.)

ihatepop

P.S.RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You probably won't be reading this thread again, but with a title like "halleluja, i see the light" what do you think it might be about, the birds and the bees?  Anyway, the contradictions in the bible thread is becoming suprisingly more about evolution than it is about the bible.  Just thought I'd let you know.

[counterpoint]

What a funny guy

"This is not my wife - it's just a picture of her."

"We have three kids - one of each..."         (gender?)

 

[asyncopated]

What a funny guy

"This is not my wife - it's just a picture of her."

"We have three kids - one of each..."         (gender?)

 

Well, almost all of it is a joke.  He should become a stand up comic.  Oh, wait a minute, he is isn't he?

This sounds agressive, but I do hope he does go to jail.  It will certianly be a minor miracle for me. Kids really need to be saved from this guy. This guy really frightens me -- I am afraid of what he can and might do.  And I thought that ted haggard was bad.  At least ted only violates men, and not kids.

[prometheus]

He will probably go to jail because he refuses to pay taxes.


He is of the opinion that all money belongs to god.

[asyncopated]

He will probably go to jail because he refuses to pay taxes.


He is of the opinion that all money belongs to god.

So not only his science is bad, his economics isn't up to scratch as well.  Was reading the wiki page about him.  He's been charged with assault. That seems kind of odd for an educator/preacher.

Just wondering if he's game to teach creationism "science" to the rest of the inmates.

[pianistimo]

i knew you'd all come around!  btw, have a good holiday and new years!  at least we can end the year peacefully.  i mean, with you all agreeing with me - we can move on to another topic.  maybe music again?

must find a terrible fruitcake to send to thal. 

[thalbergmad]

i must find a terrible fruitcake to send to thal. 

You are a terrible fruitcake.

[ahinton]

You are a terrible fruitcake.

You shouldn't have told her that - she might now send herself to you...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You shouldn't have told her that - she might now send herself to you...

Best,

Alistair

Fortunately, she does not know my address.

Unfortunately, she knows yours.

Unfortunately, you know mine.

Very complex innit.

Thal

[ahinton]

Fortunately, she does not know my address.

Unfortunately, she knows yours.

Unfortunately, you know mine.

Very complex innit.

Thal

To the extent that I never, as a matter of principle, divulge anyone's address to anyone else without their prior written permission to do so, I'd say it wasn't all that complex at all, really...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Why do non-believing intellectuals spit on believing intellectuals as a means to make themselves feel better?

[mephisto]

To make them self look better.

[pianistimo]

yes.  remember godel?  the theory of incompleteness.  there might be something to it.  therefore, we Christians might be right afterall.  and, btw, einstein never ran him out of town.

ps  i don't really think i'm an intellectual.  i use common sense combined with rash decisions that make for really unusual outcomes.  i mean, not even i know where i'm going.  this is how things are discovered.  even my most planned day - is very unorganized.  i try to make sense of it all.  sometimes i just sit and say 'help!' very softly. 

ok.  half of my brain is able to take in information. but during the processing period - some things get shifted around.  then, what comes out is my interpretation of the information.  now, with spiritual things - at least i have the help of the Holy Spirit.  with scientific things - i know i am hopeless.  i mean, i have to do experiments about three times to get any sort of result at all.  once, i tried an experiment and nothing happened two times in a row. 

i did, however, figure out finale 2007 and i'm just whizzing around - with occasional problems - but usually having to do with the ineffectiveness of the eraser.  i found a way to get around it.  i just put in a rest over the notes i don't want - and it takes out the notes that aren't correct automatically.

[ahinton]

yes.  remember godel?

Well, it has "God" in it...

ps  i don't really think i'm an intellectual.

Well, that's all right, then...

i use common sense

Which French philosopher was it that complained that "common sense" was not "common" at all?...

combined with rash decisions that make for really unusual outcomes.  i mean, not even i know where i'm going.

Yes, you do. Gravesend. You said so yourself.

this is how things are discovered.  even my most planned day - is very unorganized.  i try to make sense of it all.  sometimes i just sit and say 'help!' very softly. 

To whom? (or can I guess?...)

ok.  half of my brain is able to take in information.

Which half?

but during the processing period - some things get shifted around.

Where? - from right brain to left or vice versa?

then, what comes out is my interpretation of the information.

Well, that may work for you provided that the "information" concerned does not originate in the Bible, for then - as you and one or two others have often told us all - one mustn't "interpret"...

now, with spiritual things - at least i have the help of the Holy Spirit.  with scientific things - i know i am hopeless.

Does that mean that, for you, access to the Holy Spirit is a relatively easy option but that to scientific research, discoveries and truths is less so?

i mean, i have to do experiments about three times to get any sort of result at all.  once, i tried an experiment and nothing happened two times in a row. 

I won't even dare to ask what that experiment involved - still less what actually happened on your third attempt - in case bedrooms, poles, dancing and the like  - or even your self-admitted thermodynamically hot body - might have been involved...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

very funny, alistair.  i think christians are not a selected dumber portion of the population any more than any other.  what i mean, is that there are intellectual christians and average podunk christians.  i think i evolved after a few years of uni - to have some sort of thought pattern that wasn't completely random.  i mean i do follow a to b if there are no more than five steps.  at six i become confused.  even in piano lessons.  by the time the sixth item is added - i'm back at square one - trying to get a handle on it.

as i see it - i'm somewhere in between an intellectual and a podunk now.  thal is an intellectual living in podunk.  not sure if i want to scare him by 'stalking.'  i'd rather just let by gones be by gones.  what am i going to do.  sit him down for tea and bible lessons?  obviously he won't listen.  the worst i could do with him would be to perform a few experiments.  maybe with  music.  you know...play a little schumann.  well, if it wasn't married - i'd really try my best come on. but, who knows- it might fail.  then - it would be back to the drawing board.  and, of course, embarrassment for trying to revive my sexy days - when i would cause fender benders by wearing short shorts. 

must work out.  must work out.  does thal wear short shorts?  i think he mentioned that he doesn't like long shorts.  well, that's all for now.  it's not very christian to seduce guys with short shorts.  besides, i think i had to throw them away five years ago.  now, i have medium shorts.  ahinton, why must you get me off on tangents?  i think it's all your fault!

not sure which half of the brain does what - but i have a half that is mostly intuition.  surprisingly it fares better sometimes than the side where i try to figure everything out as rationally as possible.  the only thing it doesn't work with is direction.  you know, north south east west.  never works.  i have to basically pick one direction and go the other.

[ahinton]

very funny, alistair.  i think christians are not a selected dumber portion of the population any more than any other.

I have never suggested anything of the sort myself, as it happens.

what i mean, is that there are intellectual christians and average podunk christians.

I think I can work out what your Americanism "podunk" may means, if I try hard enough...

i think i evolved after a few years of uni - to have some sort of thought pattern that wasn't completely random.  i mean i do follow a to b if there are no more than five steps.  at six i become confused.  even in piano lessons.  by the time the sixth item is added - i'm back at square one - trying to get a handle on it.

There you go again! Steps. Dancing. And square dancing, at that, it would seem. Is the "sixth item" that you mention a Neapolitan Sixth, a German Sixth, a French Sixth - or the one I indentify in so many horribly sentimental scores to even more horribly sentimental US films as the Californian Sixth? (I'm sure that at least some readers will be able either instantly to identify or soon to figure out what I mean by this). Leave Handel out of it, though...

as i see it - i'm somewhere in between an intellectual and a podunk now.  thal is an intellectual living in podunk.

You've completely lost me now - and Thal too, I suspect; I had thought that you live in or near Philadelphia...

not sure if i want to scare him by 'stalking.'

Wouldn't you have to find your way to Gravesend first in order even to begin to think about the realistic possibilities of indulging in what I would have assumed to be this somewhat unChristian activity?...

i'd rather just let by gones be by gones.

In our English, "bygones" are one-word things...

what am i going to do.  sit him down for tea and bible lessons?  obviously he won't listen.

Why are you even writing this stuff?

the worst i could do with him would be to perform a few experiments.

With or without the involvement of bedrooms, poles, dancing, hot bodies, etc.?

maybe with  music.

Oh. Sorry. Missed the point entirely. Forgive me.

you know...play a little schumann.

No, I do not know - or at least I didn't before you wrote this. But in any case why Schumann in particular? And what music by Schumann? - the Concert Allegro, Op. 8? - one of the sonatas? - the Études Symphoniques? - the Fantasy? - the late Gesänge der Fruhe? Why not even my transcription of the middle movement of Schumann's Second Piano Sonata (which is itself a transcription of an earlier song by Schumann)?...

well, if it wasn't married - i'd really try my best come on.

Now, should this be translated from the Philadelphian English to the English English as "well, if I wasn't married - I'd really try my best to come on (to Thal)"?

but, who knows- it might fail.

If for no other reason it would surely do so if the language anomalies and inconsistencies could not be worked out beforehand...

then - it would be back to the drawing board.

Would that be an uncomfortable place for you to do whatever it is that you might be tempted to do if you were not married?

and, of course, embarrassment for trying to revive my sexy days

No comment.

- when i would cause fender benders by wearing short shorts.

Language problems again - some interpretation needed (so keep that Bible at bay, please!)...

must work out.  must work out.  does thal wear short shorts?  i think he mentioned that he doesn't like long shorts.  well, that's all for now.

Thank God - yes, God! - for that! If only your post had likewise been a "short short"...

it's not very christian to seduce guys with short shorts.

You are, of course, a far more advanced biblical scholar than I, so I will have to ask you for chapter and verse for where it is in the Bible that Christ speaks of acceptable seduction routines with especial explanatory relevance to the length of the shorts worn by the seductors/resses and seductees...

besides, i think i had to throw them away five years ago.

Who? The guys, the shorts or both?

now, i have medium shorts.

Precisely what (if anything) are we all supposed to deduce and conclude from this statement?

ahinton, why must you get me off on tangents?  i think it's all your fault!

Susan dear, I neither try - nor feel any obligation to try - to do this; you have more than amply demonstrated on many occasions that one has simply to leave you to your own devices in this regard...

not sure which half of the brain does what

You don't say?!...

- but i have a half that is mostly intuition.

Then heaven help us all if we get into the orbit that it spins - but are you telling us that you are only half-intuitive, or are we yet again up against that English language problem?...

surprisingly it fares better sometimes than the side where i try to figure everything out as rationally as possible.

Then the other side must be infinitely worse than the "dark side of the moon", methinks...

the only thing it doesn't work with is direction.  you know, north south east west.  never works.  i have to basically pick one direction and go the other.

And you go dancing? If I ever wanted to dance (which, as you know, I most certainly do not), I'd have to be very wary of you as a dancing partner, for before as much as a single bar of music had been played I'm quite sure that you'd have fallen over and I'd have stepped on your Christian beliefs (even without meaning to, if you can believe that)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Hinty, you have completely encapsulated yourself.

Thal

[ahinton]

Hinty, you have completely encapsulated yourself.

Thal

Sadly, it would indeed appear that an exercise in unwitting self-encapsulation seems to have materialised but, as now you will see to your hopeful relief and delight, the said encapsulation has now been duly unencapsulated; thank you for drawing this misfortune to my attention...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i'll try that transcription of yours of the middle movement of schumann's second piano sonata.  whenever you give it to me.  you can give it to me as a present, ok.  my address:

guess. 

btw, what makes your version better than schumann's?  just wondering.  does have more zip, pizazz, and razza matazz.  (i've been listening to 'you ain't never had a friend like me' from alladin too much). 

[asyncopated]

i strongly advice against displaying your address! this is a public website.

[pianistimo]

too late.  ok.  i take it back. 

[emmdoubleew]

I am enlightened. Thank you.

[Derek]

The guy actually says a lot of sound things.  However he weakens his argument trying to hold on to an absolutely literal translation of the bible. 

I personally don't see why one cannot believe the bible is all true, while also believing everything science has discovered: how the universe has developed since its inception (obviously science isn't going to say what happened "before" that),  evolution, etc.  I believe ALL of it. I don't understand why all these things are seen as mutually exclusive by hovind, prometheus, and others.

The key misunderstanding that produces, I'd say, 90% of debate on religion is "What does it mean for a written religious text to be TRUE?"

If your premise is: "a literal translation of the text is the truth"  then of course the vast majority of the bible is nonsense.

However if your premise is: "sometimes myth is the best way to communicate a deeper truth about human nature"  then the entire bible (or at least most of it...) can be seen as true.

I guess I just don't understand why people MUST see it as a black and white situation.  I find that such a puerile way to think.  It makes much more sense to view the bible (and ALL religion) as a "glimmer of truth on the human imagination" (C.S. Lewis' term), and then decide for oneself how close various portions of the bible, science, etc. come to the actual truth.  It is obvious God himself didn't come down here and write the Bible, so I highly doubt he is going to be mad at any of us for trying to figure out what the truth is for ourselves (assuming for the sake of the previous sentence that God exists).   

[asyncopated]

The guy actually says a lot of sound things.  However he weakens his argument trying to hold on to an absolutely literal translation of the bible. 

In my HUMBLE opinion, the only sound advice he gives in part 1 is how to shoot rubber bands.

[maul]

This man is infested with a putrid disease and it makes me feel dirty watching that video. I need a shower now. Thanks prometheus.

[pianistimo]

communism, marxism, and socialism - imo, in the ways they are approached fit the word 'dirty' better.  i would say the results match the beliefs.  God created everything good.   hovind explains the destroying of the world - through noah's flood - as similar to our day.  that is wickedness constantly in the hearts of people.  this is dirty, too. willingly ignorant.  scoffers.  the same type as were scoffing about God, the creation, and the flood (disaster) - and perished.  DIED.  if you want to know about dirty - think about death. 

more water UNDER the crust of the earth - were the 'fountains of the deep.'  i'm glad you gave this utube video, prometheus, because i believe this!  who can disprove what he is saying? 

[asyncopated]

This man is infested with a putrid disease and it makes me feel dirty watching that video. I need a shower now. Thanks prometheus.

I think what maul means is that hovind just sounds convincing.  If you look into his logic and claims, they are flawed beyond all belief.  What is distrubing is that he trys to sell this as truth.  People who do not think critically will buy into his charm and believe him. 

If you listen to any of his "facts", what he offers are outright lies.  Nothing more nothing less.  He sows disinformation and does so without scruples. 

I myself find this highly, highly distrubing.  I believe maul describes the reaction when I first listen to this talk accurately.  I felt dirty.  Spiritually unclean.  Like being drooled on with lies and falsehood.  If you read my post at the start, I tried to express this. 

I still stand by this --  I felt as if I was being mentally raped, touched by something wholely unclean, violated when listening to him talk.   I don't really know how else to express this.

Usually I'm quite open to listening to stuff.  Even kooky ideas -- you never know where the next interesting thing might come from.  But I had a really though time sitting through this one.

[pianistimo]

ok.  lets start with his ideas about the textbook idea of all the continents at one time being connected.  now, hovind makes a point that there was obviously land under the sea - and - what happened to create so much more land mass.  if the continents were all connected at one point and fit together as a puzzle - what created more land mass under the sea.  are we to expect we went from a small globe to a much bigger one?  what created more mass?  can you explain this.  no textbook ever has to me.  this is one of the FIRST things i also doubted in highschool.

secondly, it has been recently proven that there IS water in the earth's core.  so what would stop the majority of the flood waters from BEING 'the floodgates of the deep?'  and what would cause the grand canyon to be carved out by a small river which does not start high at the top of the canyon - but is many feet below.  no matter how many 'thousands' or 'millions' of years - this was created by a catastrophe of huge proportions - which, as he says - were created at the time of the flood.  a dam at the top burst and caused the canyon to have many places where the water instantly created STRAIGHT down (winding horizontally in some places, yes - but straight down vertically) gorges.  this would have to be A LOT of water pressure.

the ideas of meteors hitting the earth and producing water showers or ice blocks - has not been disproven either.  it is actually something scientists have thought of separate from any creationism ideas - but it fits the puzzle.  and, of course, the water from the flood itself - which the bible says 'rained constantly the fourty days and nights.'  the combination of water from all the sources mentioned could indeed have left us with what we now know as having changed the course of the earth (to a tilted axis - notably possibly from one or more asteroids/meteors hitting the earth) and changed dramatically the temperatures pre-flood to after-flood.  apparently the palm trees mentioned seen under ice at the south pole and the anomolies at both poles of creatures that normally live in warmer climates - indicate a climate change of huge proportions.  and,t he fact that the way the fossils were laid - some upright - indicates a SUDDEN catastrophe.  not one that is happening over 'millions' of years.

and, this fellow is correct in saying that making fossilized things doesn't take that long.  who - of the honest scientists around here agree with that?  and, his mention of the phenomenons of strata that occurred with mt. st. helen's was absolutely on target for showing how suddenly a load of dirt can be displaced.  HALF the mountain fell away as the volcano started erupting.  that's a load of 'strata.' 

so many things that are 'textbook' do not add up.  the bible does completely.  you cannot prove one iota of the bible wrong.  i don't care how much you try.  even the 900 year old life spans - you cannot know - because you are not God and you weren't there.  also, there is no more proof for evolution than santa claus.  God holds time, life spans, geology, whatever - in His own power and there is no need for us to pretend we know about how it all started.  we weren't there.  but, He does tell us a bit here and there - and hovind pieced a lot of it together! 

what if...it is true that in the days of peleg the earth was DIVIDED - and that the oceans (100 years after the flood) were caused to rise because of melting ice at the polar regions and that the oceans DID become colder - DID separate the continents more (as evidenced by massive land bridges under the sea between russia - alaska /  australia to vietnam/  the english channel to france.  there are so many plausible things that he says - as compared to textbooks - which out and out lie - because they state it as FACT when it is THEORY.

[prometheus]

there is no more proof for evolution than santa claus.

You know now that this is not true.


Derek, this Kent Hovind guy knows that almost everything he says is not true. Truly he doesn't make a sound argument.

This guy makes people sick because those people are shocked by the amount of lies someone can put into one sencence. Honestly. By the way he argues it seems that he does know what science actually claims but he always mispresents it.


He abuses one of the oldest debating ticks in the book; the strawman, over and over.

[pianistimo]

if it's such a 'straw man' - put up evidence.  you can't just say 'lies lies.'  that is a science textbook, imo.

tell me that you can't find in almost every textbook from about the mid-sixties or seventies that doesn't talk about a 'one earth' - then the continents separated.  they try to disprove what is obvious about the ocean floor.  that it was not always covered by water in every place.  talk to a scientist like dr. robert ballard!  btw, i think he may be becoming convinced himself in the truth of the bible - and he's done a lot of oceanic stuff and so would be convinced by 'evidence.'

click on 'ancient settlements' (in blue) down the article:

https://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/dead_zones.shtml

[prometheus]

I can't refute 6 times two hours of video.

The first time I watched a video of his I had to stop after 20 minutes. Couldn't for myself to continue.


The point wasn't to refute what he says. The point was to show how absurd young earth creationists can be come to those that will understand. And to find out who would dare to agree with him at least partly.


As for evidence. Why would I bother? I spend hours providing you evidence for evolution. But you still claim I haven't provided evidence.

[pianistimo]

six hours of it - from him - is better than from me.  i am not a scientist - but from common sense i can see the grand canyon did not 'make itself' from a little river and that a catastrophe can happen in short time as evidenced with mt. st. helen's.  your scientific stick-to-it-iveness dismays me.

[asyncopated]

Ok, I'm going to spend a little time to try and show how many lies there are in this thing.  I will try to fairly evaluate a small section of statements he makes that is meant to be fact, and assign a category -- true, lie, or inaccurate.  I will not evaluate statements that are a matter of belief or opinion, or which is to do with religion.  Only the facts.

From 19:53
Cosmic evolution.
Time is 3 dimension -- past, present and future  (false)
Matter has 3 dimensions -- solid liquid gas (false)
You can't have any one of those with out the other two (false -- scientificlly badly flawed)

This really requires just a basic understanding of science.

Chemical evolution.
If the big bang theory is true the big bang produced hydrogen (inaccurate)

He actually knows you can't get past iron with fusion (this is amazing) but he does not know how you can get the rest of the elements?!!! He selects facts that he wants to present and not the whole truth.

Stella evolution.
No one has observed stars forming (false)
No one as ever proven the formation of 1 star (false, it is accepted scientific theory that star formation has be observed, as he claims a spot gets brighter.  It is not the dust clearing, that's for sure)

Stars we know about such that everone of earth can own 2 trillion of them.  Ok I don't know if this is true, but looking at the number alone I think it is a like.  Even if every living person since the telescope was invented identified 1000 stars in their life time, we would not have identified enough stars 2 trillion is 2 10^12 (12 zero) The earth has about 6.5 billion people in it.  so we need to have identified 1.3 10^22 stars.  Erm that's not really possible.  His statement is inaccurate. 

We do not know that there are 10^21 stars out there, we just estimate that there are (this is a rough estimate and is done more for fun than for science).  I personally thing that his real aim is to instill a sense of awe and make you feel insignificant.

Organic evolution. 
He said that inorganic matter to organic matter was disproved 200 years ago (false)

Macro evolution.
Statement about dogs. He says coyote, wolf and dog have a common ancestor and does not deny the fact (true, but that is the point of evolution) --  actually what he claims here is that he does believe in the theory of evolution, THAT IS JUST WHAT IT IS.  If a coyote, wolf and dog can have a common ancestor the distant past, why can't man and apes have one?  It makes no sense.  Anyway, this is really a very simple case of logical fallacy.
The logic he tries to does not prove his assertion, which is the thoery of evolution is false. (false)

I'm going to stop here.

Basically out of everything he cites as fact (science), almost none of it is correct and all of it is known.   One of the things that distrubs me the most is that I think he knows this stuff and choses to lie, for whatever reason, or at least conceal the truth or puts a spin on it, rather than letting the audience decide for themselves.

six hours of it - from him - is better than from me.  i am not a scientist - but from common sense i can see the grand canyon did not 'make itself' from a little river and that a catastrophe can happen in short time as evidenced with mt. st. helen's.  your scientific stick-to-it-iveness dismays me.

It's better from you than from him.  At least I believe that you are an honest person and have a real point to make, and have pure intentions of trying to make a contribution.  I don't believe anything this guy says.

[prometheus]

He also says that the fossil record can never provide any evidence for evolution because you can never know if the individual you found ever had any offspring.


One of the more amazing claims, if you can even say that, he makes.



The only way for him to believe evolution would be if he saw a stone turn into a dog, which he believes is evolution.

If I were to see a stone 'evolve' into a dog I would probably become a theist. Can you imagine a bigger miracle?

Which one of those two statements makes the most sense?

[counterpoint]

communism, marxism, and socialism - imo, in the ways they are approached fit the word 'dirty' better.  i would say the results match the beliefs. 

pianistimo, I don't want to contradict you. But you forgot another -ism:

capitalism

Capitalism is surely not a thing that God created, whatever or whoever he/she/it is.

[prometheus]

You have not seen the video. In one of the videos, the dangers of evolution, this guy Hovind talks about how darwinistic evolution spawned forth the evils of nazism, communism and socialism. It's all work of the devil, according to him.

Ooh, and of course the New World Order.

[counterpoint]

how darwinistic evolution spawned forth the evils of nazism, communism and socialism.

That's not so wrong for the nazi ideology, since they wanted to breed a better and healthier mankind with the help of evolution theory. The result was murder, cruelty, destruction.

Look at what are the consequences of capitalism on the earth: murder, cruelty, destruction.

It's all the work of evil forces, or - as pianistimo would say - of the devil.

[ahinton]

That's not so wrong for the nazi ideology, since they wanted to breed a better and healthier mankind with the help of evolution theory. The result was murder, cruelty, destruction.

As Sorabji used to say, this process was doomed before the start, since the régime in Nazi Germany was run by people with a surfeit of ideas about ideology but not the slightest ideas about genetics - hence the exact results that you state here.

Look at what are the consequences of capitalism on the earth: murder, cruelty, destruction.

I will have to disagree with you here. The undoubted "murder, cruelty, destruction" wreaked by mankind is a consequence only of the wills of those members of the human race who choose to wreak it; its only conceivable connection with "capitalism" is that of a perversion of capitalism that results in the prioritising of greed above all else. In other words, it is not reasonable to blame these global ills on "capitalism" per se - and capitalism is not all about greed.

Capitalism is often regarded as a kind of opposite to communism, which is only partly true, since capitalism is a concept based largely upon economics whereas communism at least appeared to seek to be something rather more wide-ranging than this. If one attempts a realistic practical comparison between the two concepts, one must therefore consider only the economic aspects of communism, in order to try to match like with like. When one does this, the only material difference between them appears to be in the level of state interference in the national economy.

In a capitalist society, the profit motive is a given, as is the existence of competition in the business market place. In a communist state, however, much the same applies in practice, even if those capitalistic aspects are partly covered up by the state panoply. By this I mean that almost every person who offers him/herself and his/her goods and/or services for hire places him/herself, by definition, in potential "competition" with every other person that does the same, whether in a capitalist or a communist society; the only material difference in most instances is that, in the former, each person offers his/her wares to a mixture of private and public sector employers or through his/her own business, whereas in the latter he/she is more often than not obliged to offer them to the state system alone.

The potential and actual levels of economic corruption (competition abuse, black marketeering, favouritism, shady deals, etc.) are pretty much the same under either kind of régime.

Even a communist state depends for its economic survival on the making of profits - and no state, capitalist or communist, is economincally self-sufficient, so that economic survival invariably depends to a greater or lesser extent upon the existence and successful development of import/export relationships with other states; this latter means that communist and capitalist states are, to varying degrees, economically dependent upon one another (although, China excepted, this interdependence has, of course, lessened considerably over the past quarter century or so, due to the collapse of many of the old communist régimes).

One problem with so many anti-capitalists' attitudes appears to be in their habitual regard of profiteering as essentially and unavoidably "evil" by nature, yet profit-making is essential if ever-increasing levels of goods and services are to be provided to humans by other humans under either capitalist or communist systems. Capitalist countries with well established publicly funded health, transport and education systems (which, of coruse, is not all of them) are at least in part dependent upon profits from those three industries for their survival and development of those industries, but they are also heavily dependent on tax revenues, which can only be collected from taxpayers (corporate and individual) as a consequence of the profits that they have made elsewhere.

I am the first to admit that capitalism as we have so far experienced it is a flawed system; the widespread collapse of communism appears to demonstrated that it is an even more seriously flawed system.

One problem with certain pro-capitalists' attitudes (and it was especially evident in UK during the Thatcher régime in the 1980s) is in their assumption that everything must make a profit or it is no good and must be discouraged or scrapped. As a composer in UK, I am regarded by the UK tax authorities as a business just like any other business and am accordingly expected to generate a profit and pay tax on it. In real life, of course, it doesn't matter how much or how little I receive for my pains, the music I write does not, of itself, generate any "profit" as such at all - in fact, by definition, it is almost guaranteed to create disproportionately high losses; if that does not immediately sound credible, just think of all the costs involved in the production, distribution, marketing, rehearsing, performing and even reviewing of new music - all of those activities almost always generate losses which, in most cases, simply cannot be recovered from box office takings and sales alone and so are heavily dependent upon subsidy from the state, private industry, private individuals, charitable trusts and, frankly, any other goddam' source that can successfully be tapped for it. This situation cannot be avoided and has to be accepted as fact, however unacceptable in principle it may seem to certain folk of hardened and inflexible capitalist bent; in accepting it, I nevertheless recognise, however, that every penny of those subsidies which are the economic life-blood of my profession will derive from the profits of others and, if those profits are not made, no such funding will be forthcoming.

Of course, some of those capitalists will say, in their defence (and I've heard it often enough) "ah, but you know that composition and all that fallout from it is congenitally incapable of making a profit, so you shouldn't expect to derive a living from composition; you should make a profit at something else from which you should subsidise yourself to compose, distribute, market, rehearse, perform, review, etc. in yours and your professional colleagues' spare time". This attitude is, of course, seriously flawed on many counts, as I have no doubt members of the piano fraternity here would understand rather better than most (even if many of them are not actually composers themselves). There is a precedent, however; Busoni (no less) advised van Dieren (no less) to do something else for a living so that he could free himself up to compose just as he wished - and Busoni himself subsidised his own compositional activity by - among other things - conducting and performing (though not teaching - of which more later - because he famously refused on principle to accept payment for teaching); great, one might say - and Busoni died in his mid-50s and van Dieren in his 40s.

The most frequently heard argument is that "composers should teach for a living"; now I have to say that the notion that each composer should devote large swathes of his/her professional life teaching lots of younger composers-to-be has never quite struck me as economically tenable, given that the inevitable end result will be an infinitely greater number of composers struggling to derive a living from composition and having therefore to resort to teaching even more of them - on top of which, of course, the teaching of composition itself generates no financial profit as such, yet someone nevertheless has to find the money from somewhere to pay those composers to teach.

It's all the work of evil forces, or - as pianistimo would say - of the devil.

If all of the above can be construed as "the work of evil forces", then so be it - and perhaps what you claim as "pianistimo's" version of this - i.e. "the work of the devil" - might actually  possess some credibility in this particular context at least, since, as is well known, "the devil has all the best tunes"; it might be nice to think that he/she has "all the best 'counterpoint'", too...

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

As Sorabji used to say, this process was doomed before the start, since the régime in Nazi Germany was run by people with a surfeit of ideas of ideology but not the slightest ideas about genetics - hence the exact results that you state here.

"not the slightest ideas about genetics"

I don't think, you can say that. It were the german scientists, who provided the ideas. Many doctors were involved in studying body characteristics, illnesses etc. of groups of people (of different "races", people who were "mentally ill" etc.) It was not an action of some lunatics, who did not know, what they are doing. It was the whole german scientists who worked for getting a supposedly "better human race". The root of this mad science goes back to the evolution theory, where the fittest will survive and the weak will become extinct. The cruelty has it's root in science. That does not mean, that science is bad per se, but it shows, that you should not believe, that science is good per se. And if a scientist does say something, it is not true in every case, not even in most cases.

About capitalism:

I would not have a problem with capitalism, if there were only profits. But every profit has it's victim. The rich are only rich, because there are others, who work for them and who often do live in poverty. The richness of our western capitalist states comes from the poor people of Africa, China etc.

And if you don't have a job in the rich western countries, you will have a hard living as well. Not as hard as the working africans and chinese, but hard enough that you become an outsider in society.

So the question is not capitalism or communism, but quality of life and human rights for all people on the planet. Capitalism cannot provide this, communism either, religion either. We need something better, we need justice, humanity and freedom for everyone. Capitalism is not the solution, it's the problem.

[prometheus]

That's not so wrong for the nazi ideology, since they wanted to breed a better and healthier mankind with the help of evolution theory. The result was murder, cruelty, destruction.

Yes, but the idea to breed a better and healthier human didn't came from Darwin, did it? Darwin only helped to give all people on earth understanding into how such a thing would be possible.

I sometimes thing it would be a good thing for mankind to go extinct. By your reasoning for me to argue for such a think I need to oppose evolution since evolution is about 'survival of the fittest'.

You can see that the fallacy of creationists to attack evolution has real power. You can't discriminate between what evolution teaches us what is right and wrong and what is learns us about nature.

Science never learns you what is right or wrong. Science never learns you how to live your life. In the same sense I could favor science as a method to understand nature while at the same time I make the judgement that humans should have as less technology as possible because they aren't responsible to handle the power that comes with it.

Also, about eugenics. We now view it as something harmful and evil, that that is because of the Nazi's. I don't want to say that it is a good thing but before Hitler came to power it used to be much more tolerated.

For example, by definition you don't have to enforce a breeding program or to kill off 'weak specimen' to have eugenics.
Even stronger put, what do you think sexual selection is? Picking a proper partner is pure 'eugenics'. One could argue that we have the responsibility to do everything we can to make sure our children don't only get a good upbringing  but also that they get good genes.
Also, one can argue that one should consider the quality of the human gene pook at large.

What if we can cure cancer using a technique that would be considered to be part of eugenics and in which no one is harmed or forced to do something?

What about the Human Genome Project?

We also don't look stranglely on people that want children. At the basis for the wish for a child lay arguments and motivations that also lay at the basis of eugenics.


As for Capitalism, I think Alistair already treated it sufficiently.

[pianistimo]

dear asyncopated,

just came back this morning and i'm surprised you would dare categorize time as an absolute.  there is NO time for God.  so, He's beyond time and space.  we are finite - so for us there IS time.   we are caught in it.  but, with the help of the Holy Spirit (God's spirit) we can see to the past, present, and future through God's eyes.  so, I feel that this man is correct.  the bible has not been proved wrong by historical events, present events, and we are told future events - just as they are happening right now.  there will be armies around jerusalem.  how does God know this?  because He is God.  He can see the future.  also, He can take away his Spririt at anytime from leaders and allow them to follow Satan's desires.  so, He already knows that Satan wants to attack God's throne but can't.  the next best thing is to go after people who follow God - and israel as a nation is about the only (and smallest nation) that remembers God's laws.  but, even so - it is becoming a place of 'abomination' with parades and things that do not represent God's will for a nation.  so - in the prophecies of the end times - the nations will be scoffing at how little God cares for His nation - and suddenly, without warning Jesus Christ will return to His people and fight their battle for them.  it is said that the mt of olives will cleave 'in two' - that will be a large earthquake.  it will be too late for those who do not believe prophecy - and will be like the parable of the wedding feast.  those who are ready will enter the 'land' of promise (the ressurrection) and those that do not wish to partake of the feast - will basically be given a starvation diet and have to watch the others receive their reward.  the first thing will be watching as people are literally ressurrected.  it says 'the dead in Christ will raise first, and then those who are alive at His coming.'  if this is so - don't you want to believe the future can be very good for you?  or do you want to be like lazarus and the rich man - where the poor (and thought stupid) man was allowed to enter the kingdom and the rich man was left out in the cold because he did not understand the potential for ALL humans to benefit from God's ways.  even, if, in a small way (even somewhat doubting) - we give hope to others - God will return it.  just as cornelius was gracious to the jews of His time.  he did not persecute them and instead gave alms to them just as with his own charities. 

secondly, matter does have three states to us - that are observable.  plasma is quite unpredictable in a sense a 'spiritual' state as it is SO hot.  if God existed before anything and is unending - then He probably had some characteristics that allowed Him to have a form - whenever He wished.  we are made 'in His likeness.'  How could He have a likeness if He had no form at certain times?  it is probably the way the universe was BEFORE creation.  He says He is 'in and through' His creation.  God brought order to this universe not by plasma - but by allowing the plasma to turn into positive states of being.  now, not being a scientist i cannot explain everything the way i have an intuition it is - but plasma is probably as hard to explain as the 'spirit' in man.  we know it exists as matter and gas together - but it's as hard to understand for me - as our brains combined with the 'spirit of man' that makes us conscious of ourselves.  and yet we are highly chaotic in thinking without the help of the Holy Spirit.  it is compared with WATER and cleanses our mind of ways of thinking that are against God.  to make our minds actually 'change state' and be born again of 'spirit' - we have to have some heat applied.  God is always mentioned in the bible as being like fire, great light, unobservable because of brightness - holy.

perhaps i did not give enough hope on the benefit of the Holy Spirit?  it is called a 'helper.'  why?  because at any time we have a direct line (because of showing humility to follow His guidelines of baptism - as Christ gave the example and was baptized by John) to God's THRONE.  the very throne of God.  where satan used to hang out.  we are now able to access a huge fountain of wisdom - that existed before the ages and will exist to eternity.  that is a lot more wisdom than any man /scientist/ whatever has - and yet we still are hungry to have knowledge - but we put that knowledge from man BELOW what God says. 

as far as chemical 'evolution' - i don't think this fellow believes in evolution.  i think He believes that God created the world and the elements with great HEAT - similar to science - and that as they cooled - the various elements became observable.  in the same fashion- the earth will disappear - with GREAT HEAT.  i think it's in the book of timothy or someplace like that - it says 'the elements will dissolve with great heat.' 

now, about star formation - i tend to think you know best on that one.  having not seen it personally myself - but reading and listening to places that talk about it - it seems that the universe is kind of created to divide and multiply.  i don't doubt this for star births, etc.  God seems to enjoy setting something in motion and then just 'letting it go.'  perhaps hovind doesn't know everything - but every man is limited because the bible does not say exactly 'stars cannot be born of supernova.'  yet - our own galaxy - God created them first (as adam and eve were created).

[ahinton]

"not the slightest ideas about genetics"
I don't think, you can say that.

I wrote that Sorabji said it; I merely replicated it (but see also below).

It were the german scientists, who provided the ideas. Many doctors were involved in studying body characteristics, illnesses etc. of groups of people (of different "races", people who were "mentally ill" etc.) It was not an action of some lunatics, who did not know, what they are doing. It was the whole german scientists who worked for getting a supposedly "better human race".

But researchers in the field of human genetics had been - and still were - doing this kind of work in many parts of the world besides Germany - and for scientific rather than political reasons. What actually happened during the Nazi régime was that certain rash and absurd claims about racial superiorities and inferiorities were made, loudly, for reasons of political convenience only, by some of those in government in Germany, irrespective of the work of German or other geneticists and these assertions were then translated into policy and practice by experimentation on and extermination of people who were for the most part Jews (a fact accepted by many people with the notable recent exception of the egregious Mr Ahmedinejad who seeks to persuade the present Iranian populace that nothing of the kind ever happened). What German or other geneticist - even during and subject to that régime - ever came up with credible and irrefutable scientific evidence that Jews were racially inferior and a consequent threat to the development of the so-called white German nation? The very notion of the blond/e blue-eyed Aryan that this régime promulgated so trenchantly was in any case far more reminiscent of Norwegians than Germans!

About capitalism:

I would not have a problem with capitalism, if there were only profits. But every profit has it's victim. The rich are only rich, because there are others, who work for them and who often do live in poverty. The richness of our western capitalist states comes from the poor people of Africa, China etc.

I do not deny this - which is just one of the reasons why I claimed that capitalism is a flawed system; however, the very fact that "every profit has its victim" is so endemic in human society almost everywhere on earth that, to a greater or lesser extent, it inevitably affects everyone in communist régimes just as it does everyone in capitalist ones.

And if you don't have a job in the rich western countries, you will have a hard living as well. Not as hard as the working africans and chinese, but hard enough that you become an outsider in society.

Yes; I'd noticed that! By "having a job" you presumably mean being employed or self-employed. I have always been one of the latter and, because I do what I do, it is indeed a "hard living".

So the question is not capitalism or communism, but quality of life and human rights for all people on the planet. Capitalism cannot provide this, communism either, religion either. We need something better, we need justice, humanity and freedom for everyone.

Whilst not seeking to undermine your obvious and perfectly understandable idealism here, who is to decide what constitutes "justice" and who to dispense it and how? - and, whilst it may not be entirely inconceivable that humankind might somehow eventually come to share rather better a generalised notion of what might constitute "humanity", what price "freedom"? - freedom from what? whom? why? where? when? - and who is to define those "freedoms" and who is to police them?

Capitalism is not the solution, it's the problem.

With respect, I believe it to be neither. I also believe, however, that to expect capitalism alone to provide a solution for all the world's problems (not that I am suggesting that you yourself necessarily expect this) is to expect far too much of a concept that is by definition based largely on economic practice alone; whilst there are indeed many and serious economic woes in many parts of the world, the entire problems on our earth are not all economically based and therefore do not all admit of financial solutions alone.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i'll try that transcription of yours of the middle movement of schumann's second piano sonata.  whenever you give it to me.  you can give it to me as a present, ok.  my address:

guess.

I've accordingly just given it to you as a present in my imagination; I hope that you enjoy it! AS a matter of interest, did you actually reveal your mailing address in this thread and then rapidly withdraw it when urged to do so? Just curious! If so, let me assure you that I did not see it...

btw, what makes your version better than schumann's?  just wondering.

Nothing; I never suggested that it is so. It's obviously diffeent, not only beause of diffrences in musical language but also because Schumann transcribed one of his own earlier songs in that sonata movement and what I did, much later, was compose a paraphrase on that piano transcription.

does have more zip, pizazz, and razza matazz.

Neither the original Schumann versions nor mine have any of those things, Susan; do you not already know that Schumann? I presume not, otherwise you'd never have asked such a question...

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

those who are ready will enter the 'land' of promise (the ressurrection) and those that do not wish to partake of the feast - will basically be given a starvation diet and have to watch the others receive their reward.

Dear Pianistimo, you didn't write this to me, but I want to ask you something to this statement:

You think, you will be one of the people, who are saved and will be part of the "feast".
What do you think of the people, who are not part of the feast, who will be punished by this cruel god? Is this really the god, you are believing in? God will kill your friends and neighbours, and you will be happy? How strange religious people are sometimes...

[pianistimo]

dear alistair, you are entirely correct in stating that i do not know that second movement of the sonata in which you are referring.  it must be the opposite - a song that is as lovely as the one chopin heard of the shepherd boy playing the flute.  a simple song.  and one that moves the heart.  this is exactly the type of music that i really do love and that is why schumann, beethoven, schubert - the songsters - are some of my favorite composers.  i've heard the song cycles of schumann (woman's life and love) and think they are some of the best - with a good soprano and pianist of course (since the pianist often is both the second singer and accompanist). 

also, i tend to agree that there is no 'ism' that is better.  it's all relative in the sense of 'created by man.'  if we had a government created by God - it would be fair!  noone would be starving or mutilated while others looked on.  evil is everywhere in our world.  in capitalism probably just as much as communism and socialism.  the only thing is there used to be a respect for freedom - but now we take our freedom forgranted and some use it for evil against those who are weak.  as i read the bible - it says we should put first the weak - fatherless, homeless, widows, abandoned children - and they should get #1 care.  from the government!  what else are our taxes REALLY supposed to be doing?  not making someone fat. 

[pianistimo]

dear counterpoint,

if Jesus came so that the 'world might be saved' through Him - then why would i or any other Christian be glad that someone would lose their 'inheritance?'  that is why i am saying what i do on piano forum - so that people would know their choices.  God cannot make the choice for you.  it is your choice.  God or Satan.  it's really only two.  good or evil.  whichever you choose - it is evil that enslaves when fully 'engulfed' and good that brings ultimate freedom.  God doesn't want evil to thrive.  why would he want evil in His kingdom that is good?  it is a choice we make now.

as i see it, the rich man saw the poor man and continued to live a luxurious life in front of him without caring for his needs.  then, in the kingdom everything was switched.  the poor man was rich and the rich man needed lazarus to interceed for him.  but, God is just.  the rich man never interceeded for the poor man - though he had plenty of chance to.  so even though lazarus WANTED to help him - there was a chasm.  this chasm was after death.  this is implying a judgement time.  when it is too late!  when the doors are shut.  the time is now!

the disciples couldn't understand the parables sometimes, either - and so when Christ explained the parable of the tares - he said this (in matt. 13:37) 'the one who sows good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.  therefore just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.  the Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  then, the righteous will shine forth as the sun int he kingdom of their Father.  he who has ears, let him hear.'

in some strange way - i see the selling of the inheritance of esau for a bowl of porridge as similar to people who do not give God a chance.  they don't really know what's at stake.  their inheritance.  one that God planned from the 'beginning of the ages.'  if He made the creation in six days - but has been working from creation on our dwelling place (many mansions) - it must be a beautiful place  - the city of God - and the places that he has made.  brahms mentions this in his requiem - 'how lovely are Thy dwellings, O Lord, My God...'  Christians see the earth as a temporal home - and there's no real resting place here for them.  an analogy is made with the 'sparrow' finding a home - and our rest is really with God.