Close enough. The guy’s a legalistic dwarf. Unless he has the evolution thing down pretty well.

Though one does not need to say that entropy was before the fall and still hold on to an old earth theory. I personally believe entropy was in effect upon the creation of the earth. I believe Scripture supports this view.

Kent Hovind (glen : ) ) takes the position that if you believe entropy took place before the fall, that you almost worship a different God.

The fact that death did exist should not be questioned (eating fruit). However, the issue is whether life and death of the plants and perhaps fish differ in meaning then the death that took place after the fall.

I believe it does to some degree. Otherwise the logical fallacy of equivocation would be my friend.

An interesting thing to think about.

I’m currently reading Safarti’s book against Hugh Ross. A good read even though he argues incorrectly.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

BTW… it is Kent Hovind.

Has anybody seen the debates with Hugh Ross and Kent Hoven? It is apparent that Kent Hoven surely loses the debate and has to go back to clarify points within the debate on his own editorial tapes.

John Ankerberg was extremely unfair in his “moderation.” It was disappointing to find out about Ankerberg’s hero being Hugh Ross himself. He was Walter’s friend for years and it appears that Johhny is slipping away into absurdity.

By the way, does John Ankerberg wear a wig/toupee?

Hugh Ross needs his butt kicked publically and formally. Danny Foulkner is also an astrophysicist, though he doesn’t seem to know how to debate.

We live in a pathetic generation of Christianity. It sometimes feels like the “dark ages” since very few if at all exist to fight the good fight intelligently.

Kent Hoven though indicates that in his mind, Hugh Ross has a different God then what he has. I’m not sure I would go this far since he seems to deny theistic evolution.

Not to mention that Kent Hoven is a KJV only and is somewhat of a dim-wit. At least somebody is doing something.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

That’s good because I find myself laughing at you most days too. :->

I don’t mind people laughing. It is a war that is not about truth from the enemies perspective, but about persuasion. And since men are logically evil and haters of God to begin with, the persuasion corresponds to the nature of the audience which was full of dead men’s bones.

If he agrees to a debate I’ll let you know. However, the mystery of my face will then be revealed for Reformed MaMa to adore : ).

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

And Jean, those who laughed wont be laughing on judgement day.