[Dr. T.J. Eckleberg]

Rat is right. Sorry bout that. I LOVE quoting scripture. Does that make me a bad atheist?

That was a GREAT post Unsound. Very enlightening. Thanks.

No more for me. I've had enough fun with religion to last a few months.

Thanks to all who have posted in this thread. It's been fun.

[edraket]

Hey Steven...

The word pagan is of course a very broad one. And I have to admit that I was kind of wrong in using it like that. If you look it up in the dictionary it will say something like "people who do not believe in the one true god" or something like that.

I probably should have used the word neo-pagan. That would technically be more fitting.

I totally agree with you that the people you call messengers were something of that kind.
It might interesting fun to point out that in relationship to the whole reincarnation/karma theory it is generally believed that there have been people that have lived out their karma and therefore gained access to nirwana or its equivalent but chose to go through another life on this world in order to teach the people here some of their wisdom. And those people would be people like Jesus and Buddha.

Most neo-pagan belief systems claim to have direct roots (and therefore the same teachings)in ancient religions. Of course in many cases this can't be taken seriously.
Most of it is actually a mixture of antropological/historical theories, folklore, mystic branches of other religions (like quaballah), eastern religions and the mainly ceremonial societies like rosecrucians or the freemasons. All of these date back in one way or the other to ancient religions. Accept for the ceremonial societies probably. I really can't come up with anything to give those credit.

Have you ever read anything about tantra? I know you are probably thinking about weird sex practices now but tantra is believed to be the basis of most eastern religions and is very fascinating to read about. First off because most of it's teachings (that are thousands of years old) answer to modern day science. Up to the level where it was being tought that everything was built out of small particles that were made out of pure energy and that move in a certain order around each other. Secondly because it has been traced back to the middle east and is believed to share the same roots as the indo-european "pagan" religions.

About the "noble savage" and people following their intuition. Thats an interesting point. The main (and practically the only one) rule of wicca is (and I will spare you the cheesy old english here) "Do as you will as long as you harm noone" It's important that noone also implies to yourself.
I guess this can come down to intuition. But it also forces people to think for themselves instead of just following a set of rules that is bound to not apply to their life in one way or the other.
It is believed that evil is nothing more than a psychological misfunction usually caused by the fact that people are forced to live their lives a certain way by other people. And thus if everone would live the "Harm none" rule evil would go virtually extinct. This all answers (or maybe it was based on it) to Jungian psychology.

Ok well...I guess I have wasted enough of my friday night by now So I will just skip on the rest I had. As other people said..it's all pointless. (Accept for the not so insignificant fact of course that you can learn a lot from each other in discussions like this.)
goodnight..

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: edraket ]

[sacrelicious]

Nobody ever answers my questions.

[Unsound]

I think that is because no one knows the answer.

[Awetopsy_MIA]

Unsound:
I see you've been doing a little searching yourself...

quote:

---

Matt. 26:39, Revised Standard Version: "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father's will.)

John 8:17, 18, Revised Standard Version: "[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

---

If you read my last posts you'll see that I dont say that Jesus isnt distinct from the Father, In fact they are two individuals, of the same motivation, drive, will, mind, qualities.

quote

Quote:

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropaedia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Granted the word Trinity never appears in the bible, but Words like Elohim (a uni-plural noun meaning "Gods", translated 239 times as such) pop up all over the place throughout the Old Testament.

quote

Quote:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

Not to put down Catholics, but their doctrines and beliefs change all the time.. rarely ever the same one year to the next.

quote:

---

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lach�tre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: "The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.

---

The book of Isiah goes into a great amount of detail reffering to three distinct and self-acting persons of God, doing such things as blessing, annointing, sending, and doing things for one another. Isa. 11:2; 42:1-7; 48:16; 59:21; 61:1-2; 63:1-14. Also in Zech. As stated "trinity" may be a term coined "A.D" but the teaching of three beings was around alot longer.

quote

Quote:

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

I couldnt agree more. All scripture must be looked at in depth, cross referenced and translated as accurately as possible. A person can spend thier entire life studying the Bible and only barely scratch the surface of its complexity. That is one of the reasons it cant have been written by a human. It was written by more than 40 authors, all from different times, some from different heritages and yet every book points to mans redemption from sin and death.

quote:

---

John 1:1, 2:
Revised Standard Version reads: �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.� (King James Version, Catholic Challoner, The Jerusalem Bible, The New American Bible use similar wording.) However, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures reads: �In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.�

---

thats kinda what I said up a ways.

quote

Quote:

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: �No one has ever seen God.� John 1 Verse 14 clearly says that �the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.� Also, John 1 verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was �with God.� Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as �the only true God�; so, Jesus as �a god� merely reflects his Father�s divine qualities.�Heb. 1:3.

Go back and look at the original text of John 1:18... the word "seen" is actually translated from the greek as "horao" meaning, fully comprehend. so the context of John 1:1,2 still fits just fine.

quote

Quote:

Is the rendering �a god� consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, �The Word was God.� But not all agree. In his article �Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,� Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, �with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.� He suggests: �Perhaps the clause could be translated, �the Word had the same nature as God.�� (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the�os' in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, �The Word was God,� do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb.

Thats still only an argument... not definitive by any means.

quote

Quote:

Thus at John 6:70, he Jerusalem Bible and King James Version both refer to Judas Iscariot as �a devil,� and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as �a prophet.�

again we have to go back to the original language here. In John 6:70 the reference to Judas as "a devil" is actually the Greek word "diabolos" which has the literal meaning of "adversary, false accuser, slanderer". Only later did the word Diablo come to describe the Devil, so when the translators came across that word they translated it Devil instead of its actual meaning. John 9:17 is part of a stroy where Jesus Healed a blind man and he presented himself before the pharisees and Rulers of the synagog. At the time he said "He is a prophet he was merely stating what he knew, he did not yet know christ was the messiah. It wasnt until vs 37 that he found out Jesus was the messiah. Interestingly, Jesus ministry was partly prophetic. he prophesied his own death to his disciples... so the statement "he is a prophet" was neither false or relevant to the divinity of Jesus.

quote:

---

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: �John 1:1 should rigorously be translated �the word was with the God [the Father], and the word was a divine being.���(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, The Bible-An American Translation reads: �the Word was divine�; A New Translation of the Bible (1934), �the Logos was divine�; The New Testament in an Improved Version, �the word was a god.� In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: �God of a sort the Word was.� Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as �a god� is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as �gods� (Hebrew, �elo�him'; Greek, the�oi', at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

---

what was Jesus saying when he asked "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are all gods?", he was saying if the Law calls you ods why is it blasphemy for me to call myslef the son of God?

[SWANYDSPIN]

I'm failing to see the point of these discussions, what are you people trying to say, Is someone trying to find a flaw in the bible? Then what? it just proves my point that its all contradictions.

[Awetopsy_MIA]

sacrelicious: Dunno if this will answer your question but....

1) the bible says that God is Spirit. The thought of te chemical breakdown ofGod is useless because he created all chemicals. somebody once said "Trying to fully comprehend God is like a mosquito trying to comprehend the ocean".

2)throughout the bible it also states that God has physical properties.... in several places it mentions his face, hands, backside, feet, mouth etc.

It would be like making a mathematical equation of which we know none of the variables: (x+y-z)x(a-b+r)=God.. how could we ever know the composition. Some theorize that Spirit is actually more "real" than the physical realm that we see, hear, taste, smell and touch around us; because Spirit beings seem to be able to pass between the spiritual realm and the phyiscal realm.

SWANYDSPIN:whats the point? people are making their cases for and against the bible being true/Jesus being God/creation vs evolution etc....
Some people know their bible and they are utilizing their knowledge to discuss those opinions. Its not really arguments and fighting but rather a discussion. "random musings" if you will, on deeper subjects.

Bible contradictions? I invite you to find one true contradiction in the bible. Granted there are different aparent contradicitons depending on which translation of the bible you examine but when thouroghly examined throught the original text and meanings of the greek and hebrew words, you find that they do make sense. If you give me any contradictions you find Ill do my best to study them through and give you a reasonable explanation

[Veen]

quote:

---

Veen - no proof for evolution? Yeah rrrrright...
So (without quoting the bible, please) what proof do YOU have for creationism?

---

Didn't say I had proof for creationism. My point was there is no proof for evolution. Which puts both theories at the same level. So it comes down to (for me) which one makes more sense or has more circumstantial evidence etc. To me it's creationism, there are just too many problems with evolution theory to even consider it.

Were you saying you know of proof for evolution?
Make some money
He's got some good video'sfor free too.

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Veen ]

[Awetopsy_MIA]

Veen: thanx for that link.. Ive been keeping an eye out for that guys site.

[Steven Stahlberg]

LOL

quote

Quote:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.

Wow. People like this make me really really mad.
If everything science has observed in this matter for the last century or so doesn't sway him, then nothing will. What he wants is to distill the whole argument into one single perfect proof, which is scientifically silly, but good strategy on his part - of course there is no single 'proof' that he could not raise a tiny little doubt against - otherwise he wouldn't be so stupid as to make this hippocritical offer.
And guess what his tiny little doubt will be, in every case - "God just made it look that way to test the faithful". Arg! I believe in God, but not a God that would do that. That's stupid, childish, deceitful, incredibly annoying, and stupid, did I mention stupid?

Ok, let's talk about circumstantial evidence instead of proof - scientists weigh possibilities, and choose to assign 'likelier' or 'un-likelier' to different theories. The only "evidence" that supports creationism is an ancient legend from a bunch of desert nomads who couldn't even read and write, let alone know what the stars were. How likely is it that they were right? You might as well put "equally likely" on the theory that earth is flat and rests on the back of 4 elephants, which stand on a giant turtle, which swims in the eternal cosmic sea.

[Awetopsy_MIA]

Steven: did you even read the site? the guy is a sceintist.

But why is it that christian sceintists take so much flak? The guy talks about proving and disproving theories, science disproves theories in order to allow for "more-probable" theories.

anyways... Im probably one of the few that agrees in alot of areas.. not all but alot.

[Steven Stahlberg]

I respect your opinions, mostly I agree with them, you're smart and you know how to carry on a civilized discussion, but when it comes to this guy and others like him, who believe that every single word in the OT is the truth, IN SPITE OF having done the studying and gotten the diplomas... well I don't know, I just get hot under the collar, can't help it.

Calling himself a scientist makes him even stranger (IMHO), when he makes statements like "The dinosaurs may even be around today". I bet he only studied science so he could work from inside to discredit it, to spread his gospel. At least people like Billy Graham have the honesty of not pretending to be empiricists.
BTW he leaves out an alternative in his list of options, the one where God created the universe but not according to Genesis but according to what science tells us about it. But I guess that option's taken care of by one of his many videos, the one about how creationism and evolution are mutually incompatible. Yes they are - if you define creationism the way he does.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

[Awetopsy_MIA]

Sorry, steven.. didnt mean to sound rude or anything. Im personally not offended, your opinion and point of view counts as much as mine or anybody elses as far as im concerned. no worries.

[the_monkey]

from what ive heard of dr. ken hovin (sp) i dont really like too much. although he has a few good points, it seems like whatever the circumstance is it always comes back to some goverment conspiracy trying to propogate evolution through school textbooks. i heard a tape once where he went from the topic of evolution, straight into abortion, competly sterotyping naturalists, as heartless baby-killers.

im no naturalist, but i dont think all his points are entirely accurate.

[Veen]

I think his "offer" is simply a way to illustrate that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools as science.

As Steven was saying, few things (nothing?) can be proven 100%. So where do we draw the line? Is 99.9% good enough? 98%? It's up to each individual really.

The thing that tends to happen is someone finds "evidence" for a theory and says "aha! this proves it..." but that evidence can be explained in a way to support contradicting theories. Someone mentioned ice layers in Antarctica, indicating that millions of layers equals millions of years. But another explanation is that each layer is not annual or seasonal but represents a melt and refreeze. Meaning you could have multiple layers per day if the temperature changed a couple times. Layers prove nothing.

For me all the evidence I need is the Bible. It's contents and implications aside, if you study it you'll find it does not contradict itself. That alone is amazing considering its numerous authors and complex topics. Further, science and archeaology continue to support events recorded in it. The New Testament is made up of accurately recorded eyewitness accounts. Lastly, it has plausible explanations for many of the worlds mysteries.

Evolution has no bible, no anchor, nothing that can explain it all with some sort of plausiblity.

If you can imagine life springing from a big bang into a cell into a slime into a...etc... into a human, is it that hard to imagine God?

[Steven Stahlberg]

quote

Quote:

If you can imagine life springing from a big bang into a cell into a slime into a...etc... into a human, is it that hard to imagine God?

But why not both? Many astrophysicists go that way, after studying the universe for a while.

To me it just seems so much more logical, "Occam's Razor-like", and consistent, not to mention impressive and cool, to imagine a God that creates the laws of nature and the Initial Event and then lets the 'simulation' run with minimum intervention, and a few billion years later we have this incredible universe...
...rather than a God that creates everything finished "Hey Presto", except he makes it SEEM like everything is older, and developed in certain ways, to anyone who tries to use the magnificent powers of observation and cogitation he gave us. A wasteful and inefficient and illogical way to create a cosmos, don't you think? Cludgy, like cheating... it's hard to explain - the first way has an obvious mathematical or theoretical 'purity' and yes beauty, while the second just sounds... I don't know, silly...

[edraket]

quote

Quote:

If you can imagine life springing from a big bang into a cell into a slime into a...etc... into a human, is it that hard to imagine God?

Great point.
For me one is the proof behind the other.

[SWANYDSPIN]

For me I believe in science, it doesnt lie! all you people believe in god because you were told about him, you were 'forced' to learn about him. how can you believe in something that there is no proof exists, just because you've heard about the guy in a book or at church. I see no evidence to prove that he exists just evidence to prove that he doesnt.

quote

Quote:

Everyone is born an atheist, It is easy to teach a child to believe in Santa Claus, fairies, gods, heaven, hell or whatever. To induce belief in something false, untrue or irrational is a very serious matter. Religion is primarily a matter of infant brainwashing continued endlessly generation after generation with no one thinking to check the basic claims.

All beliefs should be capable of being justified. If the existence of any god was proved then there would be no argument.

There can be no knowledge of what is good for human apart from knowledge of reality and human nature. There is no way in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason.

Irrationality is destructive to human life.

[Awetopsy_MIA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SWANYDSPIN:
[QB]For me I believe in science, it doesnt lie! all you people believe in god because you were told about him, you were 'forced' to learn about him. how can you believe in something that there is no proof exists, just because you've heard about the guy in a book or at church. I see no evidence to prove that he exists just evidence to prove that he doesnt.

---

Just because you see no evidence doesnt mean something doesnt exist. You've obviously never seena miracle. When you've seen blind eyes opened and deaf ears hearing, when you've seen complete cripples whos legs were like rubber stand up and run around a room completeley straightened out, then we can talk about evidence.

[Awetopsy_MIA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veen:
[QB]I don't believe both because the Bible says the world is 6000 years old, which contradicts evolution.

---

where does it say that in the bible? show me.

[Unsound]

That's what I was wondering...

[Coaster]

To me, magic, ESP, fortune tellers, religion, super-natural stuff, and all that are all the same to me.

I chose to beleive in evolution/that stuff because its easier to beleive (but not perfect) and at least SOME evidence of it can be found.

When people ask me how I can beleive that stuff, I ask them how they can beleive a magical entity of sorts created such a giganticly detailed reality the way it is. One response I've actually recieved for that was: "well, because its different you know its like supernatural".

In addition, religions where made by people 5000 years+ ago which uh.. doesn't sound like they would be accurate to me furthermore, theres so many, so odds are yours is wrong anyways.

I have never seen anysort of evidence of any magical stuff like that.

You don't need something like that to tell me to act nice either, but thats where I suppose religion is good.. I guess to explain stuff to the stupid people and keep them acting positively.

~Jeff

[Giant Hamster]

Look, I'll tell you the truth: I had nothing to do with your creation. I created the universe, yes; I created a race of creatures, yes; but I did NOT create humans. I can't quite remember all the hard details...it's been a long time...but I do remember that they made you as slaves. You are meerly a slave race with the average intelligence of a bread-machine. I watched from my house(Yes, I do infact live on earth. I'm God, I can do what I want, remember?) and laughed whole-heartedly at your stupidity.

I've contributed to your downfalls aswell as your renissances.

It was I who created the spatula. Remember when DiVinci made a flying machine? He didn't really make it...He made a piss-poor design, I came in, reworked it with something more logical, and put it in place of his old one.

I'm in pretty good connection with the people that created you. I made them.
They're planning on coming back in about 10 years or so. Remember that. Because they are planning a HUGE "April Fools" Joke on you of epic proportions. There's gonna be Water, and blood, and fire, and dark masses, and wacky gravitational effects. They said I can bring a bit of Wrath and sheep...but nothing more. I'm not really supposed to talk about it, but I'm just so excited! It's gonna rock.


Just a little bit of advice for you: Wake Up

EDIT: Even God makes mistakes

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Giant Hamster ]

[Rat]

Hamster aka God - it's DaVinci, not DiVinci. Most people I know do have about the brains of a bread maker, though some have that of a bag of hammers.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Rat ]

[Giant Hamster]

Eh, DaVinci, DiVinci...whatever. He was a smuck.

[Veen]

I don't believe both because the Bible says the world is 6000 years old, which contradicts evolution. And since I believe the Bible for reasons mentioned above I discount evolution. I haven't studied year dating methods myself but what I've read indicates that there is no method truly accurate past 40,000 years. They all rely on assumptions.

I'd rather believe in the truth than in something cool or something I wished were true.

quote

Quote:

For me I believe in science, it doesnt lie!

lol. Well the system of science is fine, but the thing is it's implemented by humans. And if you didn't know, humans can lie. There are deadlines to meet, papers to write, grants to win, and for the less dedicated scientists these can influence conclusions. (by the way I love science, it's just that I don't think evolution is very scientific.)

[Steven Stahlberg]

SWANYDSPIN: a scientist would rather consider the question unresolved I should think, at least he or she would never make such sweeping statements either one way or another.

Funny but people on both sides of the issue warn about brainwashing on the other side.
Brainwashing - a strong word for what is simply parents trying to make their kids be like them. Every parent does, and sooner or later every parent fails, to a larger or lesser degree.

[Veen]

The current year is 2002 A.D. The lineage of Christ adds up to about 4000 years. Most of it can be found in Genesis 5, 11, and Matthew 1.

[sacrelicious]

Hamster: You mean a shmuck?

I've observed a lot of creationists misrepresent the theory of evolution, either purposefully or simply out of ignorance, like Dr. Dino or whatever is doing. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, the creation of stars and planets, or even the beginning of life on Earth. Evolution is just biological change over time. I don't find it hard to believe. I'm not even convinced that our theories are entirely correct, just as I'm not convinced about the existence of a God or gods. But it seems reasonable. 4 billion years is a long damn time.

Veen: You're arguing that since evolution can't be proven 100%, maybe it shouldn't be taught in school. You've already conceded that probably no scientific fact can be proven 100%. Well then, why teach anything? Additionally, evolution is taught in school so that young kids may become intrigued and go on to study it; who's to say that one of those kids grows up to be the scientists who proves evolution to be false. In my opinion, the only people who are against teaching evolution are those who are afraid that it's true.

Awetopsy: About miracles. The power of human belief, of the human mind and spirit, is an incredible thing. We can do pretty amazing things if we just believe they're possible. Maybe people are healed by the power of God or the love of Christ, and maybe not. But don't think that Christianity's cornered the market on miracles, because it hasn't.

[Martin Rebas]

How in the world can anyone take Kent Hovind (the man behind the $250k offer) seriously??? Below are a few quotes and links to sites with information about this ridiculous charlatan:

"Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill."

"I talked to Hovind about his $250,000 offer late this afternoon. He made it quite clear that he would only give up the money if someone could reproduce the Big Bang in a laboratory, produce matter from nothing, or life from non-life.

Presumably Hovind also thinks that astronomy isn't a science unless we can create a star in a lab."

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html
[url=http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm]http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm[/url]