Home > FreeHovind > Content > Ideas > Discussion: Swanson's Theories, Questions, And Answers
Swanson's Theories, Questions, And Answers
42 Comments - 91617 Views
Is The Bible or Prophecies God's Words or The Devil's Words?
Submitted By Rswanson72 on 09/03/02
FreeHovind, Rswanson72, Discussions, Creation and Evolution, Jesus, Atheist, Agnostic, Pantheist, Religeon, Christians, Bible, Scriptures, Kent Hovind, Dinosaurs, Great Flood, Noah, Ark, Prophecies 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

Dr. Kent H. explains, that it takes at least -300 degrees in the south-pole to freeze a Mammoth in 5 hrs. with undigested foods in stomach, when the Ice-Age Started. He also, explains that it goes over -100 degrees in the South-pole today.

With that being said, we get a little over 100 degrees today, as the equator temp.. If we do the math and solve for X, you'll see that survival may be impossible for people, animal, and insects.

100 :: x=
____ ____
-300::-100

X = 33.333333 degrees or colder, for the equator's temp. during the start of the Ice-Age.

My question is: How can anyone or insects survive this event? This would kill the Earth's ecosystem on a large catastrophic scale, and mess-up the food-chain thing. Noah and others would not be able to grow crops, due to no tropical regions. Most life, as we know it, would cease to exist.

Perhaps the Ice-Age and/or the Flood, took place before Adam and Eve, unless it was not on a large global scale.

What was the purpose of Noah saving two of each animals, if the Ice-Age was going to kill them anyways? If it killed all the types of Dinosaurs, you can bet that it killed just about everything else.

Dr. Kent explains, that the flood created the Grand Canyons. why is it only in a small section in the state of Arizona and not all over the United States and other continents?

Also, it has been said that Adam and Eve was real smart, especially Noah. If that is true, then what is up with the Homo Sapiens? They are not smart enough to build an Ark, and it is a fact that they existed. We have fossils to prove it. Should I have reasons to believe, that they are not our ancestors? They looks almost just like us. I keep thinking of Dr.Kent saying, "Kind is from the same Kind" Aren't we the same kind as, "Homo Sapiens"? If so, where do they fit into the Biblical picture?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Caterpillar to Butterfly and Polyp to Jellyfish are Similar to Macro Evolution. Which can be consider as somewhat evidence, but those day are over and DNA perhaps has settled in a way, like everything else.

Theoretically, it dose take a star's light to reach earth in so many years, based on its distance. If a star is 28 billion yrs away and we can see the light from it, it took 28 billion light yrs for it to reach the earth.

So, did God make the Milky way in 6 days. I know he didn't make the Universe, because God (deity or not) is the Universe. It goes for ever outwards and inwards into infinit dimensions. Perhaps he made the stars in the Milky Way 28 billion yrs ago and then made the Earth 28 billion yrs later.

Also, think of the Solar system as to an atom, and so on, and so on. You can always divide something by two, and something always make up something.

Another problem that I have. Matter can not be destroyed nor created. Where is it going to go or come from? From a place that doesn't exist?

With taking that into consideration, the Earth has always been here in some shape or form. You can not put a time stamp on it. It's not measurable.

"Time" is like "Love" or a "mental feeling". However, you can't touch, smell, tast, hear or see it. It's a measurable of distance, but not change. For an example: All the changes in the Universe, is still day one to the Universe. Therefore, you can't go back in time, as it don't exist. The here and now, is always the here and now.

Time is an illusion for most people, base on relativity. In other words, I can say that I was born today, if I go by the Universe, which is always day one, or I can go by the earth's rotation around the sun. If we lived on Pluto, you would never have a birthday. Time is all in the mind. It only exist in the mind, as love does in the heart.

God is the entity and the perceiver of all living things, or you can say, it is the Universe trying to perceive its self. That is how my God (non-deity) is everywhere and everything. My God is a he, she and it. Christians will say that their God is not Time, Space or Matter. I agree, which mean, that their Deity don't exist.

You have to be some form of matter to exist. Even electrons are matter. When they jump from atom to atom, we call it energy or electricity. Fire and light is matter. If it has a name, it is matter. If it's a thing, it is matter. Now, is laws of physics matter? No, but it does requires matter for those laws to exist. If you can smell, tast, see, hear, and feel it, then it is matter. So, the next time a Christian tells you, that God is not Time, Space, nor matter - they are lost. It's just as bad, as selling an eskimo an ice-cube.

Prophecies are self fulfilling, when they don't have dates. I can say that someone will get shot in future and it will happen and it will come true, and it will be fulfilled. Prophecies are just predicament base on history's information for the future's judgment. No one knows, if it will happen. However, if you give anything enough time, I'm sure it will somewhat happen in time. Some prophecies, did have dates, but did not happen and some prophecies we do not understand, but we assume that it is fulfilled, based on how it's digested.

I have another problem. The Bible teaches that if you're saved, you will die and live in a eternal paradise. How is that, if your Dad, Mom, brother, sister or all of them, are burning in the Lake Of Fire for some silly-o sin, such as lust? You will be living in the eternal paradise, with anguish, depression, and sadness.

Is God evil?

It say: Gen.6:13-14 "Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth."

It didn't do any good. We still have violence and wars.

Does two wrongs make a right?

Does God know, right from wrong?

Is God a mass murderer?

Perhaps, the Bible's words are the Devil's words, as well as the prophecies too. They say the devil is deceitful. Perhaps the Devil is God or pretending to be God. Hmm? You'll never know.

Kent explains about the laws of "Conservation Of Angular Momentum". I took a very long string and tied it to a 2 litter bottle. I spun it around and around, then let go of it. It did not spin in a 360 degrees, as it went outwards. Can someone tell me, what I'm doing wrong, or if this law does not really exist? Perhaps, I need something spherical. Hmm?

Matthew 24:29-31: It says:

30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

Everyone in the world will not see him in the clouds, unless he hangs there in the sky for many, many, and many days for each longitudes and latitudes that dissects the Earth's, or as the other side of the Earth, will not see him.

As far as the Ten Commandments goes, God (The Christian's Deity) forgot to have Moses put "Rape" on there, and many others too, which means, God is not perfect or is forgetful.
I have another problem. Is Jesus the Son or Sun. See movie/Documentary, "Zeitgeist" on my YouTube Channel. Note: I have it titled as, "Bible = Astrology" don't let that confuse you. Go to this link -----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st8h75CwY34&feature=related



Respectfully,
The Pantheist,
who believes in a God, as a whole,
but not as a Deity.

» Reply to Comment
it's pointless to point out the flaws in Hovind's
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/02 - 10:08 GMT
it's pointless to point out the flaws in Hovind's logic, since the creationist will categorrically deny it. either with "you are deluded by satan"or "THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH".

or of course the laughable.
"there is no evidence for evolution" which is just plain lying....
» Reply to Comment
You quoted,it's pointless to point out the flaws
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/02 - 10:26 GMT
So, you notice Hovind's flaws. I don't think its pointless. I fill that it just a prime example, that people's theory can be wrong. I'm just here to point out the holes, or varibles that I see, that a lot of poeple don't take into consideration or think about.

» Reply to Comment
OI! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! creationism has no sci
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/02 - 12:06 GMT
OI! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!

creationism has no scientific basis and to portray god in such an antropomorphic way is ridiculous.
not to mention that claiming the bible is fact is downright stupidity and ignorance.

i was pointing out the way creationist catagoriccally deny evidence.

i take it from your grammer and misenterpretation of my comment that english isn't your mother langueage.
am i correct?
» Reply to Comment
I see. I also mis understood you. My grammer is
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:16 GMT
I see. I mis-understood you, which is easy for me to do. My grammer is not great and my spelling can sucks. I think it from being born and raised in Texas.
» Reply to Comment
It was a difficult question(s) to try to anal
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/03/02 - 19:48 GMT
It was a difficult question(s) to try to analyze as your direction seemed to be established. If you don't want to believe the bible or the flood, fine. But if you have a genuine interest, there are thousand's of people out there dying to educate you.

 

1) The bible is historically accurate

 

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/690-is-the-bible-historically-accurate

 

2) The global flood (of Noah) is tenable and is supported by geology.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

 

Your assertion that everything would die is a bit naive. Most things dying  would be accurate. First point out that it is a 'theory' and subject to change. Then realize that a wealth of evidence has been found to support the 'ice age' and the flood.

 

http://creationwiki.org/Ice_age

 

One of the best illustrations we have for noah's flood is the hydroplate theory.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8

 

So, to the point; Most things would die of the cold, the rest would die in the flood, Noah and the ark was built to withstand it (he did spend 150 years making the thing), flood waters receeded and created the oceans, etc. so forth and so on.

 

http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology

 

But hey, why let facts get in the way, that would spoil the fun.
» Reply to Comment
One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luk
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/03/02 - 21:56 GMT
One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39).  This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event.  Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7!  We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.
 
The Tower of Bable passage was clearly pasted into the book of Genesis later on. And it was really squeezed in there!

That’s easy to see: just try reading Genesis leaving out the verses about the Tower of Babel. You’ll notice that Genesis 10:32 and Genesis 11:10 merge seamlessly: it’s a description of the descent of Noah’s son Shem.

In total, there is 1,4 billion cubic kilometers of water present in, on and around the planet. 1,400,000,000 cubic kilometres – that’s HUGE. But to inundate the entire globe, you would need twice as much! You would need all the oceans, rivers, lakes and underground aquifers – times two. It just isn’t there.

The highest mountain tops are 8,8 kilometers high. The total area of the earth is 18,058 million square kilometers. So you would need to fill up 8,8 * 18,058,000,000 cubic kilometres of space = 1,3 billion cubic kilometres!



» Reply to Comment
Re: One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luk
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/04 - 1:01 GMT
Interesting! That is good stuff to know.
» Reply to Comment
I believe that a Great Flood happen. My main poi
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:11 GMT
Oops! This message was to someone else. I clicked the wrong reply button. It looks like it not going to let me remove this box. Hmmm?
» Reply to Comment
I believe that a Great Flood did happen. My main p
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:23 GMT
I believe that a Great Flood did happen. My main point was the Ice-Age and that most thing would not survive it as well as the Great flood too. It would of taken 100's of years before the temp. would be warm enough for anyone to grow crops. Its taken about 4500 yrs for the earth to warth up to over 100 degree around the equator. If you do the math, you'll see what I'm talking about. I think it is safe to say that it not logical or possible for survival means for man kind. Most likey they died of starvation or Frozed to death. Which tells me that the Ice-Age had to of happend before 6000yrs ago and that dinorsaurse did exist prior to that date, since a Mammoth and trees were found under the ice of the south pole.

I will check out your link. I'm trying to seek the truth and get to the bottom of all of this. I have many, many whole, but can't find a rational or logical plug for it. Thanks.
» Reply to Comment
Re: I believe that a Great Flood did happen. My main p
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 12:28 GMT
I actually agree that widescale flooding is fairly-likely to have occurred at the end of the last ice age (although not a global flood) - there presumably would have a large increase in free liquid water as the result of melting glaciers, etc.
 
It's also interesting to note that archaelogical findings indicate that human society didn't really begin in earnest until after the last ice age. Creationists frequently employ the line of reasoning that Earth must have been created 6,000 years ago (not long after the last ice age) because we don't find written records before that time.
 
But I think that the much more plausible explanation is that, prior to tha ttime, there simply weren't any large-scale human civilizations capable of creating or preserving written records.
» Reply to Comment
wow....you might want to reconsider how the b
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/02 - 20:46 GMT
wow....you might want to reconsider how the bible is historically correct. do you even know who "made" the bible?

 

and that support of geology, geology supports a 4.5 billion year old earht a lot more...a lot.

 

btw hydroplate theory would cause the earht to be cooked, not cooled. for like the twentieth time...

 

 
» Reply to Comment
The Bible was put together around 325 A.D. but e
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:08 GMT

The Bible was put together around 325 A.D. but each book in the old testament goes back hundreds of years before that. Just look at the 'dead sea scrolls.' And as for geology radio metric dating has to many flaws to trust it. Columns have been proven to form with in a few years, so why believe some are millions of years old?
» Reply to Comment
Yes, Man made the Bible, they had to cut down tree
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:34 GMT
The comment is to: thebiblewascompiledin325AD

Yes, Man made the Bible. I don't have a problem with the Hydroplate Theory.
» Reply to Comment
All of the old testament books go back before 30
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 0:56 GMT

All of the old testament books go back before 300 B.C. Google 'Dead Sea Scrolls.'
» Reply to Comment
I google search it, and it says, "Over the years q
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 1:46 GMT
I google search it, and it says, "Over the years questions have be en raised about the scrolls' authenticity, about the people who hid them away, about the period in which they lived, about the secrets the scrolls reveal, and about the intentions of the scrolls' custodians in restricting access."

Who would know how to read Hebrew and understand it? I read a little of Psalms which was in English, but who knows if the scripts were read and digest right. It read like a poems, poetry, preying or something, as if they were writing it to them selves or writting their thoughts down.
» Reply to Comment
Re: All of the old testament books go back before 30
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 20:08 GMT
Hmm, which method do you think was used to perform the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
» Reply to Comment
Re: All of the old testament books go back before 30
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 0:16 GMT
I have no ideal. From what I understand, any methods are not accurate, such as carbon dating.
» Reply to Comment
Re: All of the old testament books go back before 30
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 14:00 GMT
I was actually pointing out the contradictory nature of Bigdog pointing to the Dead Sea Scrolls as proof of his assertion - given that the scrolls were dated by measuring their levels of carbon-14. In other words, a method that Bigdog has repeatedly derided as completely unreliable.
 
No surprise there, however, since "confirmation bias" among creationists seems to be the norm.
» Reply to Comment
Re: All of the old testament books go back before 30
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/07 - 0:04 GMT
Oh, okay.
» Reply to Comment
eeehh...the bible was compiled by roman pries
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 8:17 GMT
eeehh...the bible was compiled by roman priests AND BY POPULAR VOTE.
that means that they only put into the bible what they wanted to put into the bible.
 
if the bible was truly god's word it wouldn't be written and compiled by people who would embelish or leave orther gospels OUT of the bible.
 
how can you even try to authenticicate the bible as being god one true word WHEN SOME romans decided by popular vote what to put into it and indirectly which Christian sect got all the power, namely the Catholics.
 
to give and example of what i mean. they found a gospel in Alexandria that described Christ's youth, and he was much more human than the priests liked, so they didn't put it in the bible, because it would conflict with their view of Christs divinity.
 
soooo....to recap. you believe that a book that was explicidly censored to be propoganda for the Chatholic church's version of the Christian faith, IS the one true word of god.
» Reply to Comment
Re: eeehh...the bible was compiled by roman pries
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/04 - 3:31 GMT
That is about the size of it. Even if it was God's words. The Bible text has been altered to many times to be God's words. Pages have even been removed verses the King James version.
» Reply to Comment
Yor right Psalms is the Hymn book of the Jews
1 day - 1,411v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 2:16 GMT
Your right Psalms is the hymn book of the old testament
» Reply to Comment
Yes, Psalms are songs and poems and prayers that
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 3:24 GMT

Yes, Psalms are songs and poems and prayers that contain GOD'S mysteries via man's hand.
» Reply to Comment
Another Obama employee (Ron Kirk)owes back taxes;
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 4:09 GMT
Another Obama employee (Ron Kirk)owes back taxes; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/trade-nominee-ron-kirk-pay-taxes/
» Reply to Comment
Thanks for staying on topic.
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 13:35 GMT
Thanks for staying on topic.
» Reply to Comment
He has to ignore the thread since its reached
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 21:12 GMT
He has to ignore the thread since its reached the point where the Creationists lose... again.
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 6:16 GMT
Laughing.
» Reply to Comment
I like to do that instead of making another thre
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/03 - 16:48 GMT

I like to do that instead of making another thread. You can still reply to my previous post.
» Reply to Comment
Re: I like to do that instead of making another thre
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 14:03 GMT
So you think insects couldn't survive a global flood? I've heard scientists say the only thing that could survive an atomic bomb are insects. Not every place froze instantly during the flood obviously. This is how the dinosaurs went extinct however (from the flood). Your claim is speculation and kind of boring that's why we've kind of stopped responding.
» Reply to Comment
Re: I like to do that instead of making another thre
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 14:32 GMT
Yes. Many insects could not survive a global flood. That is also true of most species of nematodes. A global flood lasting a year would not only kill all terestrial plantlife but would also leave the land unable to support new life for quite some time. It would also have killed all coral and all of the plantlife found in wetlands.
 
It doesn't matter what you have "heard". What matters is what actually would happen under such an event.
 
Why would any place freeze during a flood? Logically that does not follow. To go from a vapor to liquid (for rain) it has to give off the latent heat of fusion (333.55 J/g) which would heat the atmosphere. If you had high pressure water under the surface of the planet that would also be the injection of super heated water that is going to increase heat. There is no logic to what you are saying.
» Reply to Comment
Re: I like to do that instead of making another thre
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/07 - 3:10 GMT
Good point. 5 stars to you. =)
» Reply to Comment
Re: I like to do that instead of making another thre
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 22:33 GMT
This is how the dinosaurs went extinct however (from the flood).
 
Wait a minute - extinct? Doesn't the "Hovind theory" state that dinosaurs are the exact same thing as modern reptiles, only smaller?
 
That also raises the question: why would the flood be so selective - killing off dinosaurs, but not modern reptiles? Size difference doesn't explain it - there were dinosaurs smaller than chickens (and certainly smaller than crocodiles or alligators). There were also exclusively aquatic relatives of the dinosaurs - so you can't explain it away by saying "only land-dwelling animals were affected."
 
Your claim is speculation and kind of boring that's why we've kind of stopped responding.
 
And how is that different from the speculative (at best) claims made in your previous sentence?
» Reply to Comment
Re: I like to do that instead of making another thre
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 1:30 GMT
I would say most, if not all insect would die from the flood, due to the salts in the water and from all the rain pounding on them for many days. Yes, insects can handle higher levels of RADS, then us. If there was enough atomic bombs, then the RADS would kill them.

From what I understand, the Ice-age took place after the flood was over. The Dinosaurs should not become extinct, because Noah should of had each kind on the Ark.

A) If all is true, then it would of been the Ice-Age that killed them all.

B) If all is not true, then that means, that the flood and the Ice-age, took place, way before 6000 yrs ago, as the Christians don't believe this. I'll go with (B), since they found a Mammoth with undigest foods in the stomach, deep beneath the South-pole.

How a Mammoth got to the South Pole is beyond me. Perhaps that is where they involed, when it was a better place. I don't think, they would make great swimmers, to get there. LOL.

Why do you find all this boring? I'm surprise, that you left a comment. So far, you are not able to answer a lot of my questions? I guess your not able to. If you find it boring, then ask interesting question, to make it fun for you. I have claims, if you disagree, then share your hypothesis, and I just might give you 5 stars for it.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 1,877v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 16:17 GMT
It must be -300 to freeze a mamoth with undigested food in it's somach...indeed....on what scale are we speaking?...How did Hovind arive at this number....This REAKS of the walls of Hovind's anus...from which I am quite sure he retrieved it.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 17:46 GMT
Why should Hovind test his theories? The audience will still "AMEN!!" his every word, with or without evidence.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 1:51 GMT
LOL. I tested the law of "Conservation Of Angular Momentum" with a string tide to a 2 litter bottle and spun it round and round, and the bottle, did not spin in a 360 degree, as it traveled outwards. Perhaps, I need something Spherical. Hmm? I'll test it again, when I find time.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/05 - 22:34 GMT
I also hope he doesn't mean -300 degrees celcius, since that would be below absolute zero.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 0:20 GMT
"I also hope he doesn't mean -300 degrees celcius, since that would be below absolute zero."
 
HAHAH y! if we can catch him saying that, hes ruined, COMPLETELY ruined
:P
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 0:26 GMT
Hovind speaks non-scientifically, so i think its fahrenheit.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 1:45 GMT
Since he is an American, he would be speaking in "Fahrenheit". However, the guy he spoke to could have been speaking of "Celcius", but forgot to tell him. LOL.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 2:09 GMT
He made some calls to people, who specialize in freezing large objects or animals. They gave him an estement of at least -300 degrees to freeze a large Mammoth to its enternal core in 5hrs to stop the digestive process of the hydrocloric acid (Gastric Juices) from futher digestion of the contents of what was in the Mammoth's stomach.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Swanson's Theories and Questions
1 day - 683v
Posted 2009/03/06 - 2:12 GMT
Duplication of above. Oops!


GenTime: 0.0624 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff