Knee-Mail: “Hey, Pete! You’re All Wet!”

From:    Kent Hovind
Sent:    January 24, 2008
To:    Simon Peter
Subject:

First read:    Matthew 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52; Luke 6:15-21

KH:    Excuse me, Mr. Peter. It looks like you are soaking wet.

Simon Peter (Pete): I am.

KH:    What happened? Did you fall out of the boat?

Pete:    No, actually I was walking on the water out there and I fell through.

KH:    You walked on the water? Yeah, right!

Andrew: It’s true, Kent. We all saw him do it!

James:    That’s right! I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it myself.

Pete:    Jesus sent us all out in the boat yesterday afternoon, but a storm came up and we’ve been bailing water for hours. Then about fifteen minutes ago, Jesus came walking out to us on the water just as calm as you please. We were scared at first, but then He said, “It is I. Be not afraid.” That calmed us down. That’s when I asked Him to invite me to walk out on the water to Him and He did! I liked walking on the water just fine until Thomas here yelled, “Watch out for that wave, Pete!” I took my eyes off Jesus and started sinking.

KH:    So what happened?

Pete:    I yelled for help! What do you think I did? I said, “Lord, save me!” and He did.

KH:    I was a lifeguard for two summers at the Salvation Army camp in Mossville, Illinois. I heard that yell a few times myself.

Pete:    You were what? For who? Where?

KH:    Never mind. The point is, how did you get back to the boat? Did Jesus carry you? Did He scold you for falling in the water?

Pete:    No. He just asked me why I doubted and pulled me back up on top of the water. We walked back to the boat. I learned that I can do anything Jesus calls me to do, even if it looks crazy to others (Philippians 4:13). Second, I’ve got to learn to keep my eyes on Him and not my circumstances (John 15). Third, I’m slowly beginning to understand Who this Jesus really is (Matthew 8:27; 16:16).

KH:    Isaiah said the Mighty God would be born on earth and dwell among us (Isaiah 9:6).

Pete:    I know. I can’t stop looking at Him! Yesterday He fed 5,000 men plus women and children with one boy’s sack lunch (Matthew 14:13-21). He stays calm in the storm and walks on water. I think we are looking at God!

KH:    I agree, Pete. I agree.

Pete:    Hey, Kent, you asked me how I got wet. Now, I’ve got a question for you. Why aren’t you all wet?  Did you stay in the boat like the rest?

45 Comments

  1. hatsoff April 29, 2008 4:42 pm Reply

    Pabramson said: “Please take a look at Francis Crick’s book: ‘Life Itself’ and his arguments proposing panspermia, i.e. life on Earth as seeded by aliens… What you very much want to believe appears to differ with published information.”

    My response:

    I’m unfamiliar with Crick’s beliefs regarding panspermia, but I cannot find anything online which suggests he did anything more than hypothesize about the possibilities. For example, in a 1972 paper written jointly with Leslie Orgel, he conveyed the following:

    “We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability.”
    –Crick, Francis, and Leslie Orgel. “Directed Panspermia.” Icarus (1973) Volume 19 pages 341-346. http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf

    Nevertheless, it is possible that at some point Crick departed from this agnosticism and publicly declared a belief that directed panspermia was the most probable origin of life on earth. I regret I do not have access to the full text of the book you linked to. However, if you know of any specific passages to that effect, you are certainly welcome to cite them here. As it is, I can find nothing of the sort, nor any indication such a passage exists to be found. I personally doubt very much that Crick would believe something so evidentially unfounded, especially given his explicitness in distancing himself from probabilistic commitments to panspermia in the 1972 paper.

    More to the point, my objections in previous posts have nothing to do with Crick. Rather, I was pointing out that Itlallburn badly misquoted Richard Dawkins–a misquotation which you yourself repeated. Since I am interested in this topic, and also devoted to factual accuracy, I feel inclined to point out the error.

    –Ben

  2. Geno April 29, 2008 7:04 pm Reply

    pabramson
    Said this on April 29th, 2008 at 4:50pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Dear Folks,

    Time for research – has been fleeting. I have been holding back on the continued challenges from the skeptics regarding SN1987A (a super nova, from 1987). Some of their posts are very good ones. Some are a mixture of good information, combined with gloating, from their perspective.
    ***********
    Geno:
    Then why won’t you let the “very good ones” through? Is it that they conflict with your claims?

    At least one of my posts was restricted entirely to statements from the creationist ministry AnswersinGenesis and referenced only information from that website and from creationist scientist, Dr. Jason Lisle.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Oh, is that message “still in moderation”?… I’ll go back and try to find the one you mentioned.

    I do not want the false evolutionary beliefs overwhelming the blog.

    Recall that belief in evolution today is only a temporary deception. Subsequent (and even better) deceptions will follow. The Bible though will continue to stand as true. This generation of skeptics is by far not the first one to say that the Bible just can’t be true. Sorry. Bible keeps standing, but the skeptics successively scurry off in search of other (and even better) mental hiding places from God.

    You, by believing (putting faith in) human consensus OVER God’s Word – are a part of the problem. You may actually know quite a bit about astronomy! Perhaps you are an expert. You’ve obviously written about SN1987A, and understand the science behind it. But you (to my understanding) start from the wrong foundation.

    By Earth time – our Creation began 5 days prior to Adam’s formation from the clay. God does not stutter. Genesis 1 means what it says, and says what it means. Until you get that clear in your mind, sir, you will drift and fall for further deceptions about our ancient (6 day; 6K) origins.

    The Stars were created on Day 4 – AFTER the Earth was formed. It was not stars first, then the Earth. One cannot try to get Genesis and evolution to somehow merge together. The sequences and time frames are completely different. P.A. ]

  3. Samphire April 29, 2008 11:44 pm Reply

    With respect to Expelled, Paul wrote: ”What you very much want to believe appears to differ with published information. P.A. ]”

    Information? What information? The idea of panspermia, directed or otherwise, is not information but just an idea and a very old idea at that. Even the ancient Greeks postulated it. Crick may have suggested the idea of aliens bringing life to Earth on spaceships but creationists favourite cosmologist Fred Hoyle did not agree. But, so what? Dawkins does not propose it and it was dishonest of Stein to suggest in the film that he did.

    Why Paul defends Stein I do not know. Expelled is a film which silently supports the blind alley of Intelligent Design, a hypothesis which dare not speak its name and is the antithesis of a special creation of a young Universe only 6,000 years ago.

    As for the SN1987A problem, Paul can only indulge himself in rhetoric and personal abuse but is unable to deal with the meat of the argument. He has no scientific response but resorts solely to ad hominems.

    ”An impression or way of viewing their perspective.
 First, is to make God small in one’s mind.”

    God doesn’t even come into the argument any more than he does when we discuss the hardness of stones or the fluffiness of clouds, We are discussing physics and mathematics, not metaphysics and philosopy.
    

    “Second, is to mentally limit what such a small God should be able to do.”

    What? Deliberately bamboozle? If I believed in a personal god it would be one who does not appear to set out to deceive.

    
”Third, is to then “logically” challenge that such a small God could even be capable of ______.”

    Not “logically” but “rationally”. And capable of what? Paul cannot even say it.

    
”There are trillions and trillions of stars (of those that we know about).

    

Which rather lends the lie to Genesis 1:17. The ancients could not understand what stars were or how they came about. Their main man-centric philosophical explanation was that they were to light the Earth at night. Well, we now know that this isn’t true since only one in every ten million million million stars (and more) is visible with the naked eye and, furthermore, the explanation of Olber’s Paradox long put paid to such an idea. Contrary to Genesis, the one thing that the vast, vast, vast majority of stars do not do is light the Earth at night.

    So Paul, having no rational answer to the physics (ditto GaryMurray), hides from reality by resorting only to quotes from the Bible, quotes which have nothing to do with the actual problem.

    What a pity. I had hoped that we would get some interesting “creation science” out of the discussion but it appears that there is none to be had.

  4. Jason April 30, 2008 1:49 am Reply

    Hi Kent,

    Good post, it always amazes me whilst reading this account, Jesus’ words to Peter;

    “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

    If ever I wanted to question Jesus’ words, it would be this one line, “little faith” ???.

    To think; Whilst fighting the weather, in a little boat, everyone sees someone walking past on the water!!! Immediately there is a consensus of opinion that this must only be some sort of spirit, but NO! it’s your friend & teacher Jesus…

    Peter seizes the opportunity, and “””UNBELIEVABLY””” asks “Lord, IF it be thou…………..?”, (i’m pausing here, for this “IF” is the precedent for his next request), “bid me come unto thee on the water.”

    Jesus says “Come”, and Peter actually GETS OUT of the boat!?!? And walks on the water.

    After a few moments, the**rationality** of Peters circumstances get the better of him, he looses his bottle and starts to sink.
    Where does peter then put his trust?? In the Boat, with eleven friends…….? No not peter!!
    Peter calls to Jesus, Putting his life in HIS hands, “LORD, SAVE ME”.

    Jesus catches Peter, and they both walk back to the boat together.

    And what is Jesus’ comment towards Peter….? “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

    I’m not sure which is most amazing, Peter’s trust/faith to actually get out of the boat, or Jesus’ comment on Peter’s trust/faith to actually get out of the boat.

    If I was Peter, My head would be Buzzzzing to the extreme after such an experience; I suppose thinking about it, that could give an explanation of Jesus’ comment, maybe it was to calm Peter down? Just a thought.

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  5. mtlionsroar April 30, 2008 5:20 am Reply

    Dear Kent

    I think we are all wet! Especially those who follow after our Lord, doing what He would have us to do…and then some doubts set in; or the wave/opposition sets in. Sometimes those waves are huge! I don’t blame Peter at all! I’m just like him. But Praise God the Lord is there, with an outstretched hand, and a gentle reminder as to doubting. Is He not capable? Is He not really standing there, defying scientic laws by being supported by liquid? Is He not the Lord of the Universe? Yes, I’m wet too, to my shame.

    Thank you Kent, once again, your words have touched my heart. They are like an arrow that pierces through, showing me how I need to behave, and how I should not. Thank you for being faithful to the Lord, to your calling, so we can be faithful to ours.

    Praying for you, dear friend.

    Dee

  6. kerith April 30, 2008 8:39 am Reply

    Yes, some of or most of us truly are all wet. What I love about Peter is he got out of the boat even if he did get wet. A lot of us do stay in the boat, I believe because we will get wet. I believe, today especially, we got to get out of the boat, and walk on water, or at least try. You still get wet staying in the boat because of the waves and wind all around us. So let’s get out and do what our Jesus does. He is coming back for a spotless bride, amen.

  7. kerith April 30, 2008 8:47 am Reply

    You know, if we keep our eyes on Jesus, it is possible we just might not get wet, then what ?
    The church would do mighty things. I believe the church is coming together again and God will bless us and the power of God will be seen once again through His people, praise the mighty God. With man, it is impossible. With God, ALL things are possible.

  8. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 April 30, 2008 3:40 pm Reply

    PA:_

    everything one need’s to know about empirical science might be visible in a compound pendulum!

    PA:_ one of the cheapest experiments a man can make is a compound pendulum. the tip of the pendulum is said to perform erratic motion/ chaotic motion OVER TIME. yet if you take samples of a few milli seconds of the motion of the pendulum everything about it can be described and its short term future described quite well to within limits. but then it will enter into micro second or nano second times of instability that may reduce to the very limits of knowability. which phase or spin state or position an individual electron is in might effect the next sequence of events. ie. the observer of the system is easily putting enough energy into the system by way of their observational power to effect the outcome of the experiment/ sequence of events. so is the system really chaotic/ random or is the system “unknowable”.

    so for a few dollars anyone can be taken to the very limits of man’s knowledge and potential to know.

    I shall have to go quote mining but i recently heard a quite clever quantum/ particle/ theoretical physicist candidly say that science is what people do to display their ignorance. if they were certain and agreed about the outcome there would be no need to run the experiment.

    Experimentation = not knowing.

    What if God is the sustaining power of the Zero Point energy field or Gravity itself. Not only is He everywhere at once and continually leaking energy into his creation sustaining everything but he could accurately tell you the exact position of the pieces of the compound pendulum a thousand years from now. – because he feels everything/ knows everything. If He withdraws His power everything everywhere goes out at once – things would be very black indeed.

    teleologically I suggest that the merger of quantum physics with relativity with thermodynamics was designed to make fools of everyone – and it does. If CERN doesn’t accidently destroy the world or create a black hole or holes that gravitate to the centre of the earth, I suggest that it will give birth to slightly more questions than it will answer. then we can set about building a 100 billion dollar accelerator – wow! Man might be able to learn more about the conditions of the very first pico seconds of the universe. won’t that be a boon?

    Laugh PA (mind you I enjoy my velcro mesh and calculator – so science does have some spinoffs – and I thank Jesus for them all ………

    science is useful but empirical science has nothing to say about ultimate cause and effect. one must look elsewhere.

    cheers from australia

  9. The Welders Wife April 30, 2008 4:15 pm Reply

    For GNAF part one
    Dear Michael,
    I’m still reading through the web pages, but seeing as you are familiar with both theories, let me pick your brains…
    Last Spring when I attended the R.A.T.E. conference in Bozeman, I asked ICR what were their scriptural references for Catastrophic Plate Tectonics? I was told that they were under the opinion that ‘fountains’ of the great deep could be translated as ‘fountains of fire’, meaning volcanic activity. So for the past year I have been researching it out in the Hebrew. From my own research I have come to the conclusion that there’s no way that it can mean anything other than water.
    Here’s my research to date on it. You have to start with the principle that ‘scripture interprets scripture’. And with that, there’s another principle that scripture has to be interpreted according to it’s context. The context of ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11) starts in Genesis 1:2.
    In Genesis chapter 1 the Great ‘Deep’ is water. There’s no other way that it can be interpreted according to it’s context. In Genesis 1:2 you have this mass of water. Earth has a location, but at that point it doesn’t even have a core.(There’s no earth there.) And the Spirit of God is hovering over the face/surface of this mass of water. [Maybe like a humming bird or an eagle. The word means ‘to shake, tremble, to flutter, hover, brood’.]

    Verse 3, God calls the light into existence.

    Verse 1:6: God puts a raqia/expanse/firmament ‘in the midst’ of the waters.
    [It’s not in the middle, per say. It’s ‘in the midst’. The KJV translates it as ‘in the midst’ too. Exact form of word ‘in the midst’ is also used in Gen 2:19, Ex 14:16, 22, 27, 29, 15:19, 24:18]
    [I prefer the word ‘raqia’ because ‘expanse’ or firmament’ just doesn’t do enough to describe it’s meaning. ‘Raqia’ is ‘an extended surface’. It comes from a word meaning something that is produced by hammering, stamping, or stretching’. I like Humphreys visual of it in his material called ‘Starlight & Time’. It’s some kind of molecular ‘structure’. It’s not just ‘empty’ space.]

    Word for word from the Hebrew, verse 6 says: [top line is modern Sephardic pronunciation]
    vi yomer Elohim y’he raqia b’toch ha miyim
    & He-says Elohim he-is Raqia/Expanse/Firmament in-midst the waters
    [KJV= And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters]

    vi y’he may-dil ban miyim la miyim
    & he-is division between 2-waters to waters
    [KJV= and let it divide the waters from the waters]

    Verse 1:7 says:
    vi yaahs Elohim et ha raqia
    & He-makes Elohim et the Raqia/Expanse/Firmament
    [KJV= And God made the firmament]

    vi yavdl ben ha miyim asher me-ta-chat la raqia
    & He-makes-divide between the 2-waters that from-below{underpart}[root word means to descend, sink down. Gen 6:17] to Raqia/Expanse/Firmament
    [KJV= & divided the waters which were under the firmament]

    ooh vayn ha miyim asher may-al la raqia
    & between the 2-waters that from-above[root: to ascend] to Raqia/Expanse/Firmament
    [KJV= from the waters which were above the firmament;]

    vi y’he chen
    & he-is exist
    [KJV= & it was so]

    Verse 1:8 says:
    vi ye-krah Elohim la raqia shamiyim
    & He-calls Elohim to raqia/expanse/firmament Heavens[‘lofty-waters’]
    [KJV= And God called the firmament Heaven]

    vi y’he erev vi y’he voker yom shanee
    & he-is dusk[singular] & he-is dawn[singular] day[singular] second.
    [KJV= & the evening & the morning were the 2nd day]

    {{Birds fly on the ‘face’ of the raqia. The raqia begins with our atmosphere & also encompasses outer space where the stars are. According to this, it was all constructed out of the basic elements of water.

    The Raqia is a thin thing from God’s perspective, although it seems endless to us. Its not endless because God has a name for each individual star, & none of them are missing (Isaiah 40:26). ..The stars are in the Raqia [Shamiyim]. The Raqia is a molecular structure of some sort that holds each star & planet to a certain location in the sky. There’s a mass of water beyond the Raqia that encircles the Raqia. In other words, there’s a mass of water that encircles the whole universe… Something that we can’t even fathom! [&, those waters are divided into two separate, distinct bodies of water.] Apparently the Raqia itself is made out of water, just like the dry land is made out of water (2 Peter 3:5). [& just because we don’t understand the process yet, doesn’t mean that it isn’t true!] }}

    Verse 1:9 says:
    vi yomer Elohim yekawvou ha miyim metachat ha shamiyim el mawkom echad
    & He-says Elohim gathers the 2-waters from-under the 2-heavens[‘lofty-waters’] to place[root:to rise up, stand erect.] one
    [KJV= And God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place]

    vah terra-ay ha yabashah vi y’he chen
    & appears the dry-land(singular) & he-is exist
    [KJV= & let the dry land appear”: & it was so]

    Notice here that the word ‘dry-land’ is singular & not plural. God didn’t say ‘dry-lands’. Plate Tectonics starts with the assumption that there are several pieces. The Bible says one piece.

    The way I understand this verse is that this is when He forms the core of the earth. The waters rise to the surface. And right afterwards He forms a 10 mile granite slab in-between them. 2 Peter 3:5 says that the earth was standing out of water & in the water. In order for a thing to ‘stand’, it has to have some sort of ‘legs’. 1 Samuel 2:8 says that ‘the inhabited part of the globe’ [root meaning of ‘world’] is set on pillars/columns. Those ‘legs’ would be standing in the water underneath the land masses. The OT saints & the early church all held this view, therefore it must be correct.
    Also note that Granite was made in less than 3 minutes according to Polonium 218 haloes http://www.halos.com

  10. The Welders Wife April 30, 2008 4:16 pm Reply

    For GNAF part two

    Verse 1:10 says:
    vi ye-krah Elohim lay yabashah aretz
    & He-calls Elohim to dry-land(singular) Earth
    [KJV= & God calls the dry land Earth]

    ooh le meekveh ha miyim karah yameem
    & to mikvah/collection the 2-waters calls Seas
    [KJV= & the gathering together of the waters called He Seas]

    vi yar Elohim key tov
    & He-sees Elohim that good
    [KJV= & God saw that it was good]

    [According to 2 Peter 3:5 this would be 2 separate, distinct large bodies of water. To have a global lake under a 10 mile thick slab of granite , and another large body of water resting in shallow basins on the surface of the granite slab would fit this description. It can’t be talking about the atmospheric water, because later we read that birds fly on the face of the raqia where the atmospheric water is located. Therefore the 2 distinct bodies of water have to be on the earth somewhere, & not above it. Psalm 136:6 says ‘To Him who spread out the earth above the waters’. Psalm 24:1-2 ‘The earth is the LORD’s & all it contains, the world & those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas & established it upon the ‘flowing waters’.’]

    Verse 1:20, 2nd half:
    vi off y-oof-eif al ha aretz al penay raqia ha shamiyim
    & birds fly upon the earth upon face raqia the heavens(‘lofty-waters’)
    [KJV= & fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven]

    Now fast forward to Noah’s Flood:

    Verse 6:17 says
    va aniy hinniy mayvee et ha mabul miyim al ha aretz
    & I behold-Me will-bring et the flood[noun, masc. singular. In the sense of flowing; inundation; deluge.] 2-waters upon the earth
    [KJV= &, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth,]

    l shacheit kol basar asher bo ruach chayiym me tachat ha shamayim
    to destroy[intensive action]all flesh that in-him breath life from under the heavens
    [KJV= to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven;]

    kol asher ba aretz yigva
    all that in earth will-die
    [KJV= & every thing that is in the earth shall die]

    Verse 7:10 says
    vi y’he l shivat ha yamiyim oo may ha mabul hiyu al ha aretz
    & it-was to 7 the days & waters the flood[in the sense of flowing inundation, deluge] were upon the earth
    [KJV= & it came to pass after 7 days That the waters of the flood were upon the earth]

    Verse 7:11 says
    be shnat shish mayot shanah l-chi-yeiy Noach
    in year 6 100s year to-life-of Noah
    [KJV= In the 600th year of Noah’s life]

    ba chodesh ha shennee b shivah asar yom l chodesh bi yom ha zeh
    in month the 2nd in seven ten day to month in day the this
    [KJV= in the 2nd month, the 17th day of the month, the same day]

    niv-k-oo kol maynot t-hom rabah va arubot ha shamiyim nif-ta-choo
    split/broke-open all fountains deep great & windows/floodgates/ambush the 2-heavens were-opened/let-loose
    [KJV= were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, & the windows of heaven were opened]

    [‘Word by Word’ says ‘were-split’

    ‘maynot/fountains’. This word means FOUNTAINS-OF-WATER. It dosen’t have anything to do with fire, as some claim!!

    ‘t-hom/deep’. This concept has to be ‘water’ or else it wouldn’t be in keeping with the concept of Genesis 1:2-5. In Genesis 1:2-5, the only thing that exists at that point is water & God’s light. For this reason, ‘deep’ cannot mean ‘hot molten lava & that sort of thing’ as some purpose. It can only mean ‘water’ because Genesis 1:2-5 explains Genesis 7:11.

    ‘rabah/great’ is not even used in Genesis 1:2-5. It’s used here to distinguish the ‘great deep’ from the shallow pre-flood seas. 2 Peter 3:5 says that ‘the earth was standing out of water & in the water’. The ‘great-deep’ was under the land mass according to Peter.

    ‘rabah’ used here also has to do with rank, as to ‘chief’. Apparently, this underground body of water was the chief or biggest body of water on earth. ‘t’hom’ in the Hebrew not only means ‘deep’, but it also means something that is in perpetual motion. This great body of water under the land mass was in a constant state of motion right from day one of it’s existence.

    ‘windows’: This is not the same word as Genesis 8:6 where it talks about Noah opening a window.. ‘arubot’ means ‘to lie in wait or ambush’. The word ‘floodgates’ used in NASB is closer to the true meaning.

    ‘2-heavens’: The only way that rain can come from outer space is if the fountains of the great deep shot it up there to begin with!]

    Verse 7:17 says
    va y’he ha mabul arbaiym yom al ha aretz va yirbu ha miyim
    & is the flood 40 day upon the earth & increases(plural) the 2-waters
    [The root word for ‘increases’ is ‘rabah’ which means ‘great, mighty, powerful’, etc]
    [‘flood’ is in the sense of ‘flowing’; a deluge, inundation]
    [KJV= & the flood was 40 days upon the earth; & the waters increased,]

    va yisu et ha teivah va taram mayal ha aretz
    & lifts(plural) et the ark & it-was-lifted(lofty, high elevation) from-above the earth
    [The Hebrew gives the idea that the Ark was really high above the dry land & that the 2-waters were massive & flowing continually!]
    [KJV= & bare up the ark, & it was lifted up above the earth]

  11. The Welders Wife April 30, 2008 4:17 pm Reply

    For GNAF part three

    Verse 7:18
    vi yigbru ha miyim vi yirbu m’od al ha aretz
    & prevailed the 2-waters & increased greatly(‘very exceedingly’) upon the earth
    [KJV=& the waters prevailed,& were increased greatly upon the earth;]

    va teilech ha teivah al penay ha miyim
    & went the ark upon face-of the waters
    [KJV= & the ark went upon the face of the waters]

    Verse 7:19
    vi ha miyim gavru m’od m’od al ha aretz
    & the 2-waters strengthened greatly(‘very exceedingly’) greatly(‘very exceedingly’) upon the earth
    [KJV= & the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth;]

    va ychusu kol hariym ha gvohiym asher ta-chat kol ha shamiyim
    & covers(conceasl,overwhelms) all mountains the tall-ones that under all the heavens
    [KJV= & all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered]

    Verse 7:20
    chamesh esreh amah mi lmamah gavru ha miyim va ychusu hariym
    five ten cubit from above strengthens the waters & covers(conceals, overwhelms) mountains
    [KJV= 15 cubits upward did the waters prevail; & the mountains were covered.]

    Verse 7:21
    va yigva kol basar ha romes al ha aretz ba of oo va behemah
    & dies all flesh the creeps upon the earth of fowl & of in-the-everywhere
    [KJV= & all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, & of cattle,]

    oo va chayah oo v’ chal ha sheretz ha shoreitz al ha aretz v kol ha adam
    & of life & in all the creepers the creeps upon the earth & all the men
    [KJV= & of beast, & of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, & every man:]

    Verse 7:22
    kol asher nishmat ruach chayiym b’ apayv me kol asher be charavah metu
    all that breath-of spirit life in his-nostrils from all that in dry-land(singular) put-to-death(dies)
    [Dry land is in the singular form, meaning that it was all one piece.]
    [KJV= All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land died.]

    Verse 7:23
    va yimach et kol ha ykum asher al penay ha adamah
    & is-destroyed et all the existence that upon face-of the ground
    [‘existence’ means ‘to stand’. Everything that was standing was demolished, whether it be living creatures, or trees, or man made structures, or anything else that was ‘standing’.]
    [KJV= & every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground,]

    may adam ad behemah ad remes v ad of ha shamiyim va yimachu min ha aretz
    from man to in-the-everywhere to creepers & to fowl the 2-heavens & they-were-erased from the earth
    [KJV= both man, & cattle, & the creeping things, & the fowl of the heaven; & they were destroyed from the earth:]

    va yishaer ach Noach v asher ito ba teivah
    & remains only Noah & that with-him in ark
    [KJV= & Noah only remained alive, & they that were with him in the ark.]

    Verse 7:24
    va yigbru ha miyim al ha aretz chamishiym oo mat yom
    & prevails the 2-waters upon the earth 50 & 100 day
    [KJV= & the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred & fifty days]

    Verse 8:1 says
    va yizkor Elohim et Noach
    & remembers Elohim et Noah
    [KJV= & God remembered Noah,]

    v’ et kol ha chayah v et kol ha behemah asher ito ba teivah
    & et all the life & et all the behemah that with-him in ark
    [KJV= & every living thing, & all the cattle that was with him in the ark:]

    va yaavier Elohim ruach al ha aretz va yashoku ha miyim
    & passes-over Elohim wind upon the earth & subsides(plural) rests[to lie down, rest, dwell] the waters [Notice that it’s not 2 waters here.]
    [KJV= & God made a wind to pass over the earth. & the waters assuaged]

    Verse 8:2
    va yisachru maynot thom va arubot ha shamiyim
    & were-closed/shut-up/stopped fountains-of deep & windows-of the heavens
    [The rain didn’t stop till the fountains of the deep were closed. [[Hydroplate theory]]]
    [KJV= The fountains also of the deep & the windows of heaven were stopped,]

    va yikalei ha geshem min ha shamiyim
    & was-restrained the rain(violent, heavy) from the heavens
    [KJV= & the rain from heaven was restrained;]

    Verse 8:3
    va yashuvu ha miyim may al ha aretz haloch va shov
    & receded the 2-waters from upon the earth going & receding
    [‘receded’ means to turn back (not necessarily with the idea of return to the starting point)]
    [‘haloch va shov’ means ‘going on & returning (continually returning)’. This could be caused by the changing of the tides & also by tsunamis etc. In any case, the only safe place was inside the Ark!]
    [KJV= & the waters returned from off the earth continually:]

    va yachsru ha miyim mi ktzeih chamishiym oo mat yom
    & diminishes the 2-waters from end-of(noun) 50 & 100 day
    [KJV= & after the end of the 100 & 50 days the waters were abated.]

    Verse 8:4
    va tanach ha teivah ba chodesh ha shviyiy b’ shivah asar yom la chodesh al hareiy ararat
    & rests the ark in month the 7th in seven ten day in month upon mountains-of Ararat (‘to pluck from the swirling flow’ [possible meaning])
    [KJV= & the ark rested in the 7th month, on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.]

    Verse 8:5
    va ha miyim hayu haloch v chasor ad ha chodesh ha asiyriv
    & the 2-waters were going & decreasing until the month the 10th
    [Here ‘decreasing’ means ‘to want, to lack, to diminish’]
    [KJV= & the waters decreased continually until the 10th month:]

    ba asiyriy b’ echad la chodesh niru rasheiy he hariym
    in 10th in 1st of month were-seen heads-of the mountains
    [KJV= in the 10th month, on the 1st day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.]

    I cannot see how they can get ‘fountains’ of the great deep to mean ‘fountains of fire’.
    If I’m missing something, would you please point it out.

  12. pabramson April 30, 2008 4:20 pm Reply

    “Three Chinese banks in world’s top four”
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080430191254.lghbtwt2&show_article=1

    From Article: “Three Chinese institutions were among the world’s top four banks at the end of 2007 at a time when the market capitalisation of Western banks was suffering from a global financial crisis, a study showed Wednesday.

    “The number one spot in the rankings, compiled by the Boston Consulting Group, was occupied by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, with market capitalisation of nearly 340 billion dollars (218 billion euros).

    “In second place was China Construction Bank, followed by HSBC of Britain, Bank of China, Bank of America and Citigroup of the United States. …”

    ====

    “EU bails out German bank for $7.8 billion”
    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080430/eu_germany_bank.html?.v=5

    From Article: “… Other European governments have jumped in to rescue troubled banks. The European Commission is investigating Britain’s nationalization of Northern Rock PLC, the mortgage bank that nearly collapsed in a bank run last year.

    “Numerous European banks have been battered by the U.S. mortgage crisis.

    “Switzerland’s UBS AG saw losses and write-downs of approximately $19 billion. Deutsche Bank AG said Tuesday that it wrote down $4.2 billion. German regional bank BayernLB reported that write-downs of $6.7 billion.”

    ====

    Money talks. Do you have a few hundred dollars (or Euros, Yen, etc.) in cash? (For those who can afford it, of course.) Or are you $7 away from your next visit to an ATM?

    Is all of your banking through a single bank or credit union? Do you have a second checking account (with $50-100 in it) at another institution, in case one day you needed to change where funds get deposited? If it is already setup and you have received the account’s checks, and there are no monthly fees, then it would be instantly available if needed in the future, should your main bank suddenly declare high losses or some other serious problem.

    In the early 1930s there were numerous bank failures in the US and overseas, that included “runs on the bank”, where one day – suddenly a rumor would cause folks to rush and pull their funds out – accelerating an already bad situation.

    http://www.creationism.org

  13. pabramson April 30, 2008 4:33 pm Reply

    Dear Bluemoose,

    I just found one of your postings in the “spam” box, from April 25th, and I have posted it. I am very sorry for the delay on that one. And I now see some more from folks that I need to scan through and fish out of there.

    ====

    Concerning the ever-budding creation-evolution debate here (which I know that I participate in), I have been holding back a number of messages from the skeptics-side. Re-iterations that SN1987A is the “nail in the coffin” of creation are … worthy of consideration. But I regret that I do not have a grasp on the whole evidential sequence – to exclude any possibility of “rubber rulers”.

    (Skeptics, sorry that I am skeptical of the skeptics’ skepticism!)

    Many, many times in the creation-evolution debate – the evolutionists have come up with a new one, and it has taken years before the built-in error is discovered by creationists. This may be one such case.

    But the more that I have learned about SN1987A, the more interesting it is. And Wow! It was witnessed in real time (relative to light reaching the Earth, of course). And I do TAKE BACK my earlier illustration of the 16-light-minutes-ultra-narrow angle, as I see that astronomers were able to use a different set of reference points – making a much, much wider angle!

    Folks, I will assume that “cseantipode” has all of the postings that the skeptics have been trying to make here. Please visit there, if you are interested in all that they’ve been contending in these regards.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  14. Geno April 30, 2008 4:55 pm Reply

    pabramson
    Said this on April 30th, 2008 at 12:18pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    I located GENO’s message that refers to AiG and to Dr. Jason Lisle.

    It is now above – at: April 29th, 2008 at 4:30pm.

    Paul Abramson

    P.S. We had that kind of situation several months back. The skeptics were even quoting other creationists. It seemed that somehow the creationists HERE must be wrong, or in dispute, etc. Even other creation-based sub-theories could be considered, as long as postings HERE would then be shown as contradicted. …

    Is the motive to search for the truth? Or to “prove” that the folks HERE must be wrong, no matter what?
    ***************
    Geno:
    Well, you have made the point that there are disagreements among scientists. I pointed out in response that there are also disagreements among theologians. It should not be surprising that there are also disagreements among creationists.

    That is not necessarily a bad thing.
    ************

    Paul:
    O’ course, anyone who would make it their life long goal to try to convince others of the wrong atomic weight for nitrogen – I mean – who knows what else they may also be up to!?
    ************
    Geno:
    I would be the last to attack Mr. Hovind for a relatively minor slip of the tongue. It happens to all of us. When I’m teaching and it happens to me, I merely advise my students that I’ve had an episode of “cerebral flatulance”.

    That said, I will, however, point out errors of ommission commited by Mr. Hovind as with his claims regarding the number of stars being “born”. (Which Paul also blocked.)

  15. Geno April 30, 2008 5:34 pm Reply

    pabramson
    Said this on April 30th, 2008 at 4:33pm:
    ——————————————————————————–
    But the more that I have learned about SN1987A, the more interesting it is. And Wow! It was witnessed in real time (relative to light reaching the Earth, of course). And I do TAKE BACK my earlier illustration of the 16-light-minutes-ultra-narrow angle, as I see that astronomers were able to use a different set of reference points – making a much, much wider angle!
    **********
    Geno:
    I take that as agreement that the distance to Sn1987a was measured using trigonometery.

    It seems I may not have been sufficiently clear about the first images from Sn1987a. I did not mean to imply that all the telescopes that could view the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) were trained there within 10 minutes. The sequence went something like this:
    Physics predicts that as a star collapses early in the process of a supernova explosion, there will be a release of neutrinos that will travel outward at the speed of light in advance of the actual supernova event. A neutrino burst was detected and determined to be from the LMC. Astronomers have a notification system and a notice was immediately sent out to all the major observatories. Due to the advance notice, the first images of the supernova were obtained within 10 minutes of first light from the event reaching Earth. I do not know what the “lead time” from the neutrino burst was.

    Sn1987a was the brightest supernova observed from Earth in over 400 years and is one of the most studied astronomical objects in the last 20 years. There is a searchable astronomy database at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html which lists over 1.8 million documents. More than 2200 of them have “1987a” in the title… nearly 10 per month since the supernova event.

    There is another recommendation I would like to suggest those interested in astronomy might like to bookmark. That is the “Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive”. They present some really neat pictures and they aren’t always about astronomy. For example, one is a picture of a sonic boom. The APOD archive is at:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

    The picture of the sonic boom is at: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070819.html
    ************

    Paul:
    Folks, I will assume that “cseantipode” has all of the postings that the skeptics have been trying to make here. Please visit there, if you are interested in all that they’ve been contending in these regards.
    **********
    Geno:
    Normally, I don’t make copies of my posts, but in this case I did. There are three subjects I’ve posted at cseantipode (within the last hour) because I anticipated Paul might block my comments. They are:
    1) Trigonometery — explaining the basis of the trigonometric calculation of the distance to Sn1987a.
    2) Davies on the speed of light — discussing the Davies paper referenced by Paul as showing that the speed of light may have varied.
    3) AIG on 1987a — discussing in detail the AIG paper about Sn1987a that Paul linked on this list.

    For those who are interested, they are at:
    http://groups.google.com/group/cseantipode

  16. Geno April 30, 2008 5:58 pm Reply

    Paul,

    I’ve twice submitted a response to your most recent comments regarding Sn1987a. They are not showing up in the “waiting moderation” on the current page.

    Could you please check and see if they’ve gone to the “spam” folder. The comments include links to searchable astronomy databases, really neat astronomy (and other) images, and some of my responses posted at cseantipode.

    Thanks.

  17. Elethiomel April 30, 2008 9:05 pm Reply

    Paul Abramson says “But the more that I have learned about SN1987A, the more interesting it is. And Wow! It was witnessed in real time (relative to light reaching the Earth, of course). And I do TAKE BACK my earlier illustration of the 16-light-minutes-ultra-narrow angle, as I see that astronomers were able to use a different set of reference points – making a much, much wider angle!”

    Elethiomel replies: Thank you for your humility in this matter Paul. Whether people believe in a young or old earth is to me immaterial, but when people pooh pooh God’s creation of both the universe and the mind and ingenuity of man to understand and learn about it is to me sad. His universe is indeed a beautiful thing, and it is one of my greatest joys to learn about it.

  18. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 1, 2008 3:48 am Reply

    Learned Hand, seeing you’ve at least had a bit of a look at intelligent design arguments have you perchance finished cover to cover any one of Phillip E Johnson’s books. He’s a retired Berkeley Law professor, getting on a bit and not in such great health now I believe, but I’d be interested to discover what fallacious arguments you identified in his works. please do persist …

  19. DQ May 1, 2008 5:00 am Reply

    Dear Welder’s Wife-
    It seems that you are contending, in the first of your several recent consecutive posts, that Plate Tectonics is not valid science, specifically with your assertion:

    Notice here that the word ‘dry-land’ is singular & not plural. God didn’t say ‘dry-lands’. Plate Tectonics starts with the assumption that there are several pieces. The Bible says one piece.

    I am curious as to your opinion on what caused the earthquake that Paul (and I) felt a couple of weeks ago. Ditto the earthquake that hit California today. If not plate tectonics, what was the cause of these earthquakes?

  20. DQ May 1, 2008 5:05 am Reply

    Paul-
    Please post the link to cseantipode again, as it has not been posted in a while and you are encouraging people to go there.

    http://groups.google.com/group/cseantipode

    I also have a couple of questions:
    1) If I am “hiding from god,” why do you suppose I have been reading every post on a creationist blog for a year? That doesn’t strike me as the actions of someone who is trying to hide.

    2) If the bible is true and will always stand up to the false science that skeptics dream up, why not approve all the posts? It’s not like we’re going to come up with something that disproves the bible, right? So what are you worried about? If someone says something that you can’t answer, just get Peter to tell us we’re going to burn in hell. Problem solved!

  21. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 1, 2008 3:58 pm Reply

    Learned Hand, not wanting to be hypercritical but your use of the word hagiograph might need some revision.

    the bible seems to say that every blood washed born again baptized believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a “saint” – somewhat in contradistinction to the method in which the latin church employ the word – thus if I were to write a biographical piece on Paul Abramson or Danny/Ekkman or Dr. Peter that would make me a “hagiographer”

  22. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 1, 2008 5:02 pm Reply

    Saints of the Most High God,

    If for every question answered by empirical methodology there are two or more questions subsequently begotten then it can be shown that within a finite amount of time it is possible to know infinitely less about a subject than when first the process of discovery was commenced. If you choose to consult with others so too engaged with empirical discovery it can be shown that you can both know infinitely less about the same subject than when first you both commenced your industry, and in a fraction of the time.

    Henceforth we shall call this the CSEblogs Information Paradox (or S.I.P. for short)

    I confidently predict therefore that before your time here at CSE blogs is completed you shall realize you know nothing…….[ an inevitable corollary of the CSEblogs Information Paradox]

    so take a SIP, see where it gets you……

    (C) 2008 copyright to Paul Abramson, Natural Man, Child of God.

  23. Ganf May 1, 2008 5:59 pm Reply

    Welders Wife –

    Two words are used for heaven(s) : haShamayim and hamayim

    I think that you provided translations way back in a much older entry. Could you give them to me again, it has great bearing on how I would respond to your recent posts (re:Hydroplate vs CatasTectonics)

    Thanks in advance,

    Ganf aka Michael

  24. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 2, 2008 3:50 am Reply

    PA:_ let me put it this way. as a veteran of creationism I thought you would have been aware of this.
    star light is the last tool heathens have in their tool box. it doesn’t matter what the tool is really like of course they are going to use it as a hammer, screw driver, pliers, saw, brace, you name it. to their ultimate bloody shame of course. If a “scientist” [joke] doesn’t know the answer to a question that is just the way science is. if a Christian doesn’t know the answer to a question they are a pseudo scientific religious bigot. of course the hypocrisy of the skeptic shall catch up with them. of course they deserve to burn in hell.
    a saint is just a sinner who God has forgiven.
    why does it have to be all or nothing. maybe Russell Humphries is half right. Maybe Barry Setterfield is half right. Maybe Dr. Bouw has a few of the jigsaw pieces. Maybe some of the secular scientists who are grappling with dozens of different cosmological models have some of the story right.
    it is not laboratory science. this is extrapolation taken to extremes. the paradoxes and anomalies and contradictions abound.

    ultimately what they are really rejecting though is Jesus Christ and the bible. they have no way out of that. either Eve was the mother of every living human being on earth and she lived roughly 6000 years ago and saw the very first stars just recently created or she wasn’t. there is no in between interpretation. if Jesus was wrong why listen to one word he had to say.

    if he was right then it behooves us to pay close attention to Him

    cheers

  25. itlallburn May 2, 2008 6:51 am Reply

    Hi Paul,

    Very sorry to be a bother, but I am unable to post on cse. I have tried email, perhaps I am goofing that up as well. Is it me?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: It could be that your posting went to the “spam” bucket. Sometimes if a message has several web links or (whatever the criteria) certain keywords – then a message goes there, and I have to try to find it. Lots of true junk messages come in each day. But I usually go out and look for real messages that got misrouted; but I don’t do that everyday. P.A. ]

  26. pabramson May 2, 2008 7:45 am Reply

    Dear DQ,

    Thank you for your comments of – May 1st, 2008 at 5:05am

    You Wrote: “http://groups.google.com/group/cseantipode

    “I also have a couple of questions:
    1) If I am ‘hiding from god,’ why do you suppose I have been reading every post on a creationist blog for a year? That doesn’t strike me as the actions of someone who is trying to hide.

    “2) If the bible is true and will always stand up to the false science that skeptics dream up, why not approve all the posts? It’s not like we’re going to come up with something that disproves the bible, right? So what are you worried about? If someone says something that you can’t answer, just get Peter to tell us we’re going to burn in hell. Problem solved!”

    ====

    (For #1) In my mind, I do make a personal distinction between (what I term) atheists and anti-theists. I have stated this several times in the past that I think there are many honest atheists – who sincerely contend that there is no God or gods out there. They consider this reasonable and wish to persuade others, from reason – to the best of their understanding.

    Back when I lived in Berkeley, the leader of one of the atheist groups in the SF Bay Area and I used to joke about theology and reason, in a respectful manner. (Many members of his monthly meeting probably would not have understood.) But for example, one time I wrote an Email to him about China. I have not been there; I’ve never seen it. I therefore had to wonder whether or not China actually exists or not. He understood exactly what I was implying with such a contention. He took it in stride. He wrote back to me that he in fact has visited China and could confirm its existence based on his experiences. … It was a humorous exchange at times.

    I know that I am generalizing when I make a contention like “hiding from God”. To my limited understand of all that is – our minds are partially conscious and partially sub-conscious.

    Romans 7:15 “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.”

    (For #2) Dialogue and debate are enjoyable to me. I learn more at times from someone who strongly disagrees with me on an issue, than with one who thinks similarly. But not everyone is like ME. (One can be thankful for that!) I liked Berkeley. Dr. Hovind also enjoyed his two visits to Berkeley. He wanted to keep coming back each year.

    But while living there – and able to open doors on campus and arrange meetings – I actively invited creationists from several leading organizations. “Please come!” Some though did not even write back! …That was disappointing. There is a particular large creation organization that steers away from the debates and universities in general. They like only going to churches, where they speak (to friendly faces) and then sell their materials. Hmmm. Are they … avoiding the heavy lifting? Are they … focused on the marketing side of their ministry?

    I spoke on a campus two days ago. We had a small group, about 25 persons altogether. It went pretty well. There were two skeptics trying to ask all the hard questions. -Which is good for everyone else to see, as I introduced and contended that “creation theory” really is a full theory. And I encourage folks to ask their hardest questions and challenges (but to not give diatribes or to try to “take over” the meeting). And I usually tell folks at the outset that we are not going to settle the creation-evolution debate that day, but to double-check and use the evidences that I will bring forth to help them improve their own theories or understanding on our place in the universe and whether or not there is a God/gods, etc.

    As far as all relevant comments being aired and heard in this blog – well, … some folks do not want that. Some believers really dislike the strong negative comments that some persons can make on a blog. So, I moderate. It is not “fair”.

    Jesus focused His strongest negative remarks on religious leaders who misled others. I see Peter doing similarly. And if … IF evolution could be construed as a general “belief system” regarding our origins and our place in the universe, then that too becomes fair game (in our minds) to then be criticized on religious levels. While Peter and I do disagree on some matters (as folks have seen) I think that he and I do generally agree on that.

    Perhaps you are a “learner” as I am. But one problem is that we each start from a very different frame of reference. Why is there a universe? Why are there dreams? What happens when I die? Is there more out there? How does one determine right from wrong?

    When I make a claim like “the Earth is 6000 years old” – I imagine that your mind immediately floods with lots of scientific reasons why such a ridiculous notion cannot possibly be true!

    When a person looks at “all religions” (to include Biblical Christianity) as from the past, my mind floods with the tremendous number of deceptions down through time and that we are in a spiritual war for souls. Your soul is at stake! You! Your essence, your soul…. “Why can’t folks see that!?”, I wonder inside.

    On Wednesday (at the campus talk) there was a particular older man (probably in his 60s) sitting to one side. He had said nothing, but he was listening intently for the whole hour-and-a-half. I had given my short talk and was then answering lots of questions from persons. Also, I had been sparring with the two skeptics, while (continuing to) try to also encourage other questions from anyone. I decided to ask him in particular (his manner indicated that he may not oppose being called upon, it appeared) if he had any questions or challenges.

    He immediately replied that he already knows that Jesus is Lord and that this was good enough for him. He said it with confidence. I think it surprised the room. For him the creation-evolution debate is not so important. He knows in whom he believes. I thanked him for his comment. …Then the skeptics and I returned to discussing thermodynamics, radiometric dating methods, the fossil record, and other things.

    I hope that the blog is interesting for folks. I hope that it is educational! There may be some persons out there – who have never submitted a message – but who read all these exchanges with interest. …

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  27. pabramson May 2, 2008 7:58 am Reply

    Dear GENO,

    Okay – found the posting with the astronomy links. (It is now above: April 30th, 2008 at 5:34pm)

    Several years back I placed a small subset of NASA-type images online:
    http://www.creationism.org/universe/index.htm

    And I see today – that one of them was of SN1987A:
    http://www.creationism.org/universe/imagee/SN1987A_Ringsc.jpg

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  28. pabramson May 2, 2008 9:02 am Reply

    “All salmon fishing banned on West Coast” – Friday, May 2, 2008
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/02/BABT10F7PE.DTL&tsp=1

    From Article: ” Salmon fishing was banned along the West Coast for the first time in 160 years [i.e. since 1848, when Americans began fishing there] Thursday, a decision that is expected to have a devastating economic impact on fishermen, dozens of businesses, tourism and boating. …”

    ====

    Back in January, taking my own advice to buy a variety of extra canned and dry foods ahead of time, (and noting that the expiration is 3-4 years for salmon,) I bought over a dozen 14 oz. cans of salmon for $1.50 each when they were on sale at a local grocery store.

    That is the equivalent of about $1.80 per pound; compare that to the market price of fresh salmon at $8-12/lb. or more, depending upon the type.

    Folks, I am still grocery shopping about 3-4 times per week. I don’t overload any one store in my purchases, particularly on any one visit. But earlier this week I bought more lentils (12 – 1 pound bags at 72 cents each), and 10 cans of canned meat, a “Spam” like product, at $1 for 12 ounces, expiring in November of 2011. That is over 3 years from now! Only $1, for (by their can’s reckoning) six servings. // A different grocery chain has canned milk on sale for 2/$1. I will be back there this evening for (probably) 8-12 cans, if their stocks are still high. I am buying ahead, stimulating the US economy. (Ain’t I the patriotic one!) And that chain is the cheapest for dry split peas, at 59 cents per pound. -So I’ll be buying more tonight!

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  29. Ganf May 2, 2008 9:08 am Reply

    Paul,

    Thank for a great post on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:45am:

    I think it is a good summary of the issues and correct demeanor.

    If we can continue dialog, here, that quells errors in fact (not interpretation) and promotes rational and respectful discussions of interpretation, then all will benefit.

    Critical discussion of the Hydroplate Theory and Catastrophic Tectonics as competing creationist models for the Flood period could be quite interesting. Also analysis of Old-Earth vs Young-Earth interpretations could be illuminating. I see this as a different approach than that of arguing Creation vs Evolution, even though skeptics could (should) participate.

    What are the arguments for and against these views, from a Bible-believing perspective, and how can the hypotheses be tested? Welders Wife has begun this process and I am carefully reviewing what she proposes and how the Hydroplate hypothesis can be tested. However, before spending too much time doing so, I want to make sure that the subject is open for discussion on this blog. If not, then I will invite WW to continue at CSEAntipode.

    Regards,
    Michael

  30. pabramson May 2, 2008 10:34 am Reply

    Dear Itlallburn,

    Okay – found your posts (4 attempts for that message, it appears).

    They’re now posted:

    http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=139 – at: April 30th, 2008 at 5:41am

    http://www.creationism.org

  31. itlallburn May 2, 2008 10:56 am Reply

    Hi hatsoff (Ben),

    Your quote: “More to the point, my objections in previous posts have nothing to do with Crick. Rather, I was pointing out that Itlallburn badly misquoted Richard Dawkins–a misquotation which you yourself repeated. Since I am interested in this topic, and also devoted to factual accuracy, I feel inclined to point out the error.”

    I am not one that “always has to be right”. But it is important to me that the tactic of saying something ain’t so, when it is…really needs tending to.

    My past post is now at:

    http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=139 – at: April 30th, 2008 at 5:41am

  32. pabramson May 2, 2008 11:23 am Reply

    OKAY – all held-back “skeptics” postings – are now up to date again. I have carefully read through each one, and approved most of them, after checking links, etc. (Regarding one of these – please see my reply to Samphire, below.)

    But the “spam” folder is next. I let it get behind. I’ll be plowing through more of them today.

    ====

    Dear SAMPHIRE,

    Thank you for your comments of – http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=139 April 28th, 2008 at 10:59am

    You wrote: (First quoting my verse) “Paul wrote: ”Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

    Like this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X043xVrQBr8

    Shocking.”

    ====

    It is interesting how two persons can see the exact same thing (in this case a 3 minute video), and interpret it very, very differently.

    The YouTube title is: “Why religion is child abuse”

    How old is this boy, 9 or 10? // I for one did not see it as “shocking” per se.

    If I can fully sort out my multiple impressions: first I see a youth with a real stage presence! I state this separate from his message. His gestures are well rehearsed or he’s spent a lot of time watching an elder who must use such movements in his preaching. His arm motions, holding the mike just so, pacing the stage deliberately, intensified phrases, planned pauses – he is a little boy who sure knows how to “work a crowd”.

    Second, I think someone helped him with the sermon. The references (just like his gestures) do not fit his age. He makes the point that he did not come from monkeys. He did not come from a stork either. He did not write his own sermon.

    Third, I am concerned for his future. The Bible tells us to be careful who becomes teachers/elders/pastors/masters.

    James 3:1 “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.”

    Above, you quoted the verse that I had related previously. Well, this kid is still being “trained up”. What is he doing as a mouth-piece to teach adults? And it is a big crowd! Are his parents “working him” from behind the scenes?

    Child movie and TV stars, generally speaking, have terrible lives. Distortion; immaturity; too much fame and fortune early on causes real psychiatric problems for most of them. Michael Jackson would be an extreme example of this.

    In America in the 1950s there was a child preacher who also did “healings”. He later fell away, having become disillusioned. Reading about him many years later he related that if a woman had breast cancer he would place his hands appropriately and pray for her. That is hard to believe that adults could forget common sense so badly.

    But … look at the adults in the crowd in the 3 minute video. The kid is “being worked” (it appears to me), but they are just responding to his words.

    I see the teaching of evolution (with its: God does not love you; you are a cosmic accident; this life is all there is, etc.) as a form of spiritual child abuse.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  33. SC Girl May 2, 2008 12:37 pm Reply

    Hatsof Ben –

    In the scientific community is was well known that Crick leaned toward panspermia. The following is an except from Wikopedia about Crick:

    “Directed panspermia

    During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[48] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[49] In a retrospective article,[50] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life.”

    For everyone else, we still visit Dr Hovind most Fridays and he is doing wonderfully. He would love some more visitors as they have become less frequent.

    In Christ,

    SC Girl

  34. The Welders Wife May 2, 2008 1:08 pm Reply

    Hi DQ!

    I’m running out the door, so I’ll just give you a quick answer & get back to you later.
    One of the things that causes earthquakes is a displacement of ground water. Of course that’s not the only reason. Try this link for starters. Check out the index on earthquakes too if you have time…

    http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html

    Hi GNAF

    ‘Ha’ means ‘the’ in Hebrew
    ‘Shamiym’ means ‘Heavens’
    ‘miyim’ means ‘water’

    In Hebrew, different vowels or consonants added to the root word makes it plural, or singular, or dual (meaning 2 of something). The root word can also be male or female or common gender.

    One Hebrew word can mean 2 or 3 or more English words. ‘hashamiym’ means ‘The heavens’ or ‘the 2 heavens’ depending on the vowel structure. ‘hamayim’ means ‘the waters’ or ‘the 2 waters’ depending on the vowel structure.

  35. The Welders Wife May 3, 2008 5:12 am Reply

    Praying for the powers to come…

    Sometimes I think that because we’re deserving of God’s judgment, then what’s the use of praying?, but then I remember that both Samuel & Daniel prayed concerning the political climate even when things were at their worse. They never quit praying!

    So… here’s what I’m praying…

    • Whoever is the next president, that God will guide his decisions even now, even if that person isn’t the one I’m planning to vote for.
    • I’m also praying that whatever needs to happen to persuade people to put their trust in God’s LAMB, that God will bring it to pass. Eternity is a long time. The troubles we have now are only temporary. I think that that’s where the Father’s heart is in the matter. There’s no question that we all deserve God’s judgment, but I think God’s heart right now is more concerned with people putting their trust in Him through His Son. And… that we all have the mind of Christ [Philippians 2:5]. May the heart of The Father bring to pass whatever it takes to get us there…

  36. hatsoff May 3, 2008 5:24 am Reply

    itlallburn wrote: I am not one that “always has to be right”. But it is important to me that the tactic of saying something ain’t so, when it is…really needs tending to.

    my response: Quite right, which is why I corrected your misquotation.

    itlallburn: Here are several prominent reviews from journalists that attended the showing: http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_8988473?source=email http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/04/18/ben_stein_vs_sputtering_atheists?page=2 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzA4N2ZmZjAzYzhhNTU5MGEyOGJlN2FmMWIxMmE5M2I=

    my response: The reviewers are welcome to interpret Richard’s statements as they like, but in the links you provided they do so incorrectly. I don’t blame them, though; after all, the filmmakers bent over backwards to misrepresent Richard as best they could. It’s no surprise that those unfamiliar with his work on the subject of creationism might fall victim to the deception.

    itlallburn: Ben, are you still going to attempt to tell thousands that saw and heard, myself included, that we did not see and hear what we saw and heard, or is this settled?

    my response: I didn’t find the quotation you ascribed to Richard in any of the links you provided. I seached Google, too, with no luck. Are you telling me you remembered word-for-word what Richard said in the interview clip, or were you guessing? And if you were guessing, why don’t you just say so? It’s such a simple thing. I really don’t see why you keep trying to defend such an obviously invented misquotation.

    itlallburn: Clearly you are a Dawkins fan, but I would like to post another of his quotes here for the sake of clarity: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

    my response: There you are; now, that’s an authentic quotation. Your earlier would-be quotation was an invention. The difference between them is profound.

  37. pabramson May 3, 2008 7:19 am Reply

    Dear HatsOff,

    Thank you for your comments of – May 3rd, 2008 at 5:24am.

    I especially liked the National Review link.

    “Intelligent Critique: Expelled adroitly addresses the
    dogmaticism of Darwinian theory in the scientific world”
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzA4N2ZmZjAzYzhhNTU5MGEyOGJlN2FmMWIxMmE5M2I=

    From Article: “…Dawkins has since complained that the interview was set up under false pretenses, and that he didn’t even know who Stein was. It is rather astonishing that it did not occur to the world’s smartest atheist to look up Ben Stein on the Internet, where he might have readily discovered numerous examples of his writings that are critical of Darwinism.

    “Dawkins dismisses the Emmy-winning actor as having ‘no talent for comedy.’ He believes during the interview Stein is an ‘honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.’ A lawyer, a law professor, an economist, and a speechwriter for both Nixon and Ford, Stein hardly seems to fit the description ‘honestly stupid.’

    “In the end, the film isn’t really about intelligent design as much as about a relentless attack on an authentically free inquiry. As Ben Stein points out, ‘Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.’ “

    http://www.creationism.org

  38. hatsoff May 3, 2008 2:28 pm Reply

    Pabramson,

    First of all, it is not clear from your post whether or not you understood that the article links I posted were a part of a quotation of itlallburn; I do not agree with their contents.

    That said, the article you quoted does get one thing right: Richard indeed could have been more suspicious of the filmmakers, especially given the apparent substanceless quality of Stein’s interview. However, I can’t really blame him for not anticipating the deception, since I don’t know what kind of importance he places on avoiding it. It’s difficult for me to imagine what it must be like for Richard, having his words carefully scrutinized at seemingly every turn, and criticized at the faintest hint of error, whether factual or social. However, I do know that I would be very much inclined to resist letting the unethical and ignorant behavior of creationists (not all creationists, mind) affect me too negatively; I think I’d strive, as he claims to have done, to hold onto an optimistic view of people in general. If that meant being taken advantage of now and then, well, that’s a price I’d be willing to pay.

    Anyway…

    It seems my correction has been heard, if not acknowledged, which is good enough for me.

    Since I’m typing this, there were two questions which have been on my mind for some time, and which I will now finally ask:

    1. What’s the deal with Dinosaur Adventure Land? I had heard the property would be seized by the government, but according to its website the place is still up and running. Will it be closed down in the future as the result of Federal intervention? If you’re not sure, when will you find out?

    2. Ten years is an extremely stiff penalty, in my opinion, for tax evasion. He is scheduled for release, according to the bop website, in August, 2015, which will have only been just under nine years–still much too severe, of course. But is it really going to be that long? Is there anything like “good time” in the Federal system? Or parole? Other than having the judge reverse his sentencing decision, is there any way for Kent to get out of prison earlier than 2015?

    I know those questions are a bit personal, so if you can’t answer I certainly understand. I figured, though, that it couldn’t hurt to ask.

    –Ben

  39. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 3, 2008 4:26 pm Reply

    PA:_ I suspect that Richard Dawkins enjoys the infamy he has with creationists no less than the fame he has among Evolutionists.

    Richard has made good income from the all the creationists who buy his books to see how he got wrong this time – buyers who are never disappointed for lack of ammunition he provides them with. Richard Dawkins crying foul could fill a swimming pool with crocodile tears – he makes a living from being a stirrer.

    Its like Tom Cruise complaining about the Paparazzi. There, There, Tom, have photographers made your life hell …

  40. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 3, 2008 5:12 pm Reply

    Samphire,
    RE:_ Baalam and the talking donkey. It seems to me that there at least two possibilities. one, The Holy spirit got inside this animals head in a particular way and did things there such that exhaled air passing over the donkey’s vocal chords produced speech. or two, the event wasn’t that different from Moses and the burning bush. the fire must have been an unnatural sort of thing or the bush would have been consumed. Or the flame was a natural thing and the bush had an unnatural property.

    dry bushes/ brush normally crackles when it burns [we have bush fires in Australia and they are quite loud]. flame produces sound not normally heard from a bush. all the sounds/ energy are there to produce voice if a fairly unusual / statistically abnormal sequence of events were occurring in the fire.

    if everything about the two events could be reduced to quantum fluctuations within the microtubules in donkey neurons or the heated particulate matter within a flame then there isn’t necessarily any violation or thermodynamics that is measurable. ie. one would have to call it a miracle by faith. otherwise you would simply have to call it an event unlikely to happen on your watch.

    I hope this answers your question.

    there was an american documentary series on Man-Animal symbiotic cohabitation and the development of communication methods between species.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLR4iZJLgc4

  41. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 3, 2008 7:07 pm Reply

    If the shoreline we are sitting on is as far as the eye can see one section of the coastline of a Mandelbrot set world, then we know we haven’t seen much.

    Isaac Newton was looking for a clock work universe and saw one. If he had have considered the non linear addition nature of forces effecting a compound pendulum would he have published Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica –

    anyway, he enjoyed his time at the beach and learnt to worship God for what pebbles he picked up – so a good constitutional wasn’t time wasted.

    when “knowledge fails” – faith hope and love

  42. for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974 May 4, 2008 4:05 am Reply

    PA:_ I’ve been in search of the ultimate one liner – the bumper bar sticker I could adorn at least a few million fundie cars with:

    If you are involved with bumper bar sticker campaigns:

    “If you don’t know Jesus is the answer, you haven’t learnt to ask an interesting question”

    cheers,

    what’s a micro tubule good for if you can’t tune it to an interesting station or two ……………

    have a fundie fun-day, all in worship

  43. Learned Hand May 4, 2008 2:57 pm Reply

    Phillip-George (c)1974,

    I have read Mr. Johnson’s work, but not for several years. As you say, he’s rather infirm now, and a fairly passive presence on the scene. I actually thought he might be deceased until I googled him. I assume that he was, at one time, a distinguished legal scholar – one doesn’t get to be a professor at Boalt Hall without being very smart, and I believe he also clerked for a justice of the Supreme Court. I don’t believe that he had any education in the sciences, however, and it showed in his extremely bad advocacy for creationism (in the form of intelligent design).

    Johnson knew little about science, and doesn’t appear to have made any effort to educate himself. His work has been described by reviewers as (wait for it) dishonest and intentionally misleading. A good review of his work is available here: http://www.talkreason.org/EDITED. It offers numerous specific examples of Johnson’s ignorance and dishonesty, with citations to the evidence. Interestingly, it also includes an account of the reviewer’s personal correspondence with Johnson: “Although, as noted above, Johnson makes many assertions about scientific fact which are not backed up by any references in his research notes, I felt it irresponsible to draw hard conclusions without making sure that the research notes told the whole story. Johnson first flatly refused to help. I explained myself more fully, saying that I was simply trying to verify some of his factual assertions. To this, he responded that the controversy was not about scientific facts but philosophy.” This may have been the moment of Johnson’s greatest honesty – his work was never about scientific facts.

    I also disagree strongly with Johnson’s perspectives on the legal merits of teaching religious ideology in public schools. Here, however, he was on stronger footing, as this is not an objective, factual debate but largely an expression of his subjective opinion. Insofar as there is an objective, factual position, it is that the law is, and has been for all of living memory, that it is illegal to teach sectarian ideology with public tax dollars. Johnson made a number of arguments that it should be legal to teach his religious beliefs with public tax money, although I believe he was less enthusiastic about the teaching of other peoples’ religions. Whether his arguments are persuasive to you depends largely on your preexisting opinions, philosophy of constitutional interpretation, and knowledge of the caselaw, and can become an extremely complex discussion. Unless pressed with specific questions, I’ll do Mr. Abramson the favor of letting that sleeping dog lie.

    If you have access to American legal journals, I can recommend a number of interesting articles on the subject. I will warn you in advance that they are, without exception, dry, technical, and rather opaque to the layperson.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Perhaps you are the one who should stick to matters of law. Dr. Johnson’s research into matters where evolutionary beliefs have invaded science classes is well done, IMHO. And certainly he is not “dishonest” in his conclusions. Why are you insisting such nonsense?

    For one-time past events a legal standard is often more appropriate than a less encompassing scientific standard, which inherently deals with the here-and-now, i.e. testable-repeatable. Forensic (scientific) evidence is inherently limited.

    Could one, using only science, determine whether or not the Battle of Gettysburg took place or not? The skeptics would have the advantage. They could laugh and claim that the large field used to be quite the hunting grounds, hence the many bullet fragments, etc.

    Why the claim of “dishonesty”?

    You are better than that. Well, unless your sin nature is getting the better of your ability to reason.

    “Darwin on Trial” is one of Dr. Phillip E. Johnson’s excellent books.

    His forte is the ID movement, of course. He would go no further than that in his published works. Clearly life on Earth did not just fall together all by itself. What faith evolutionists exhibit.

    If you want to contend from “they’re lying” and “they’re dishonest” – when the opposite is the case, I shall have to edit your entries, which I do not want to have to do.

    If you want to be angry at God, that is your concern. But if you then want to impugn the character of those who are NOT hiding from our Creator – sorry, this is the wrong forum.

    At three years old a child need to learn that there are rules: don’t jump on the bed, don’t throw your juice cup, quit screaming when you can’t get your way, etc.

    By 20-30 one should learn that there is yet a bigger standard of right and wrong for all humans. Greed, lust, envy, self-centeredness, et cetera, violate God’s rules. We can hold our breaths or stomp our feet – it does not change the FACT that God has made rules for us to follow in order to get the most out of life.

    Evolution, yet again, sigh, is but a spiritual deception. Please do not fall for it. Instead do this: (Micah 6:8) “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” P.A. ]

  44. Learned Hand May 4, 2008 3:19 pm Reply

    Hatsoff,

    You asked Mr. Abramson, with respect to Mr. Hovind’s ten-year sentence, “is it really going to be that long? Is there anything like “good time” in the Federal system? Or parole? Other than having the judge reverse his sentencing decision, is there any way for Kent to get out of prison earlier than 2015?”

    Hopefully neither you nor Mr. Abramson will object if I give you a quick answer. The quick answer is “no.” The slightly longer answer is that there is such a thing as parole in the federal system, but only for prisoners sentenced before 1987. In 1987, a system of sentencing guidelines was put into place, and anyone sentenced under those guidelines (like Mr. Hovind) must serve their sentence as set forth therein. There is a long and windy description of the history of parole in the federal system at http://www.usdoj.gov/uspc/history.htm. The parole commission still exists, but it only handles people sentenced before ’87 and a few oddballs, like people sentenced for municipal crimes within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. (I think.)

    There is, however, a “good time” credit. Federal prisoners are required to serve at least 85% of their total sentence, and may be awarded a credit of the remaining 15%. This is actually fairly common. When you say that he is scheduled to be released in August 2015, that must already be taking the credit into account, as he was sentenced to a 10-year term in 2007. It’s possible to lose good time, but not all that common; I think it’s pretty unlikely that someone of Mr. Hovind’s age and demeanor would wind up serving all ten years.

  45. Pingback : heated dog bed

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.