Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[Difflugia]

How did the convicted non scientist felon fraudster convince you? What are the actual "evidences" [sic] he presented?

Pretty much everything he did was in the form of videos. I have some friends that were into Hovind twenty years or so ago, so I've watched more of them than anyone should ever have to. His debates are pretty much just the same speech delivered at a rapid-fire pace, no matter what the agreed topic actually is, including the same terrible jokes ("This is the Bible, I believe it cover-to-cover. I even believe the cover on mine; it says, 'Kent Hovind.'" "This isn't my wife. This is just a picture of her.")

Hovind's key to success is the Gish gallop. He says so many things so quickly and in such a way that one is left with the impression that if even some of it is true, then evolution is in trouble. The first time I saw one of his videos, I was stunned. Even though I was already used to Answers in Genesis, Hovind is on an entirely different level of saying wrong things with a straight face. I watched one of his debates with a group of Christian friends and when it was done, we agreed to watch it again, but pause the video after each claim to look it up and verify it. The idea of the Gish gallop is the impression of a nonscientific audience that nobody can be that wrong. If the "evolutionist" can't refute each of the many, many wrongnesses, then some of them might be right. It's tedious, but that's also why you won't get a specific list of convincing Hovind arguments out of a creationist, because it's tedious to even list them ("Google the YouTube!").

Once we got rolling, though, it was clear that everything that he says relating to science is wrong. Like, everything. Once we hit a sort of cadence, that became obvious for each statement that we were going to look up the next thing and it would be wrong, so we started fast forwarding and spot-checking. After a couple of hours, we took a Homestar Runner break and never went back.

His trick in debates is to never bother defending anything he says that his opponent refutes. The debates are limited by time, which is why he loves formal debates. Which set of things his debate opponent refutes depends on the opponent's particular area of expertise, but Hovind's reaction is to, rather than defend something, just say something else wrong. The audience gets the impression that it doesn't matter if that one thing the debate opponent picked on was wrong, there are still too many other things waiting to fill the gap it left and there's no way that a debate opponent could possibly react to all of them in the time allowed, even if he or she wanted to. Anyone with even a cursory science background starts to see the pattern and it becomes painful and frustrating to watch, but those people already aren't creationist and aren't the one's Hovind's preaching to.

It's kind of amazing how much traction Hovind's videos had in the creationist movement before his prison stint. If someone in a conversation pulled a just impossible-sounding gotcha "fact" about evolution, it probably came from a Hovind video. The one I can always remember without looking it up because it's such a howler is that the "Colorado River has no delta" (so where did the sediment from the Grand Canyon go?). That one's funny because the response is just to do a Google Image search and look at all the beautiful satellite photos. Eric Hovind tried to keep the "ministry" going and has had some success, but he just doesn't have the same fast-talking salesman patter that his old man does.

Hovind himself never published transcripts or anything, but there's a Dutch guy that went to the trouble of transcribing Hovind's "seminar" series, which is an expanded version of the same material. That's probably the closest thing to an actual list of Hovind's arguments that you'll find.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #110]
You did not cite a single thing about evolution; like Hovind, your post is all bluster and hot air suggesting indoctrination instead of knowledge.

Although the fact of evolution is obvious and simple to express (even Hovind admits to evolutionary change) one must have the knowledge of the actual details on a genomic basis to be able to discuss it intelligently. You haven't demonstrated you know anything about the subject. Hovind simply cites the Bible as 'evidence' then talks as if the theory of evolution claims one species turns into another overnight, instead of over millions and billions of years.

Sometimes speciation occurs relatively quickly, so quickly we can actually observe it.

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sc ... ervations/

You make similar vague claims about abiogenesis, but the evidence is in the details.

Russell demonstrated that alkaline vents created an abiogenic proton motive force chemiosmotic gradient,[185] ideal for abiogenesis. Their microscopic compartments "provide a natural means of concentrating organic molecules," composed of iron-sulfur minerals such as mackinawite, endowed these mineral cells with the catalytic properties envisaged by Günter Wächtershäuser.[186] This movement of ions across the membrane depends on a combination of two factors:

Diffusion force caused by concentration gradient—all particles including ions tend to diffuse from higher concentration to lower.
Electrostatic force caused by electrical potential gradient—cations like protons H+ tend to diffuse down the electrical potential, anions in the opposite direction.

These two gradients taken together can be expressed as an electrochemical gradient, providing energy for abiogenic synthesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenes ... vironments

I realize reading and comprehending that is not as easy as

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.

... but understanding the details of probable ambiogenesis, like evolution, takes something more than the simple minded approach Hovind bloviates. The Bible describes what happened. Science explains how.

[TRANSPONDER]

Excellent response. I haven't watched too much of Hovind as it is frustrating to watch this method of pouring out a string of nonsense claims to a receptive audience with no chance of rebuttal. I recall one talk which was a sort of show trial of evolution with three of his chums playing as evolutionists and himself getting them to spout strawmans. Like on I recall one waving a popular science magazine and saying "I believe this". To which Hovind exhibition - debunked him with the false creationist story about the Chinese fake fossil - which Palaeontology had detected was a fake. The whole thing was a sham providing confirmation -bias for the faithful.

I also recall some tosh about the Flood, 'of course there is enough water. If you took all the water there is it could cover the globe if if it was just an inch deep" or something like that. Yes, but it wouldn't float a kiddies paddle -boat. I can't imagine that even believing listeners wouldn't hear that and say 'but that's not a meaningful answer to the problem'.

But this is much of how they work - false or impractical claims made to those who don't know better and aren't likely to check. There's a pretty good video series by Lightfoot 'why do people laugh at creationists' where he debunks some of the claims that creationists make. Some take quite a lot of work, like the ice -sphere idea of where the flood water came from. One of Walt Brown's as I recall. It takes a lot of physics to refute a claim that can be stated in a few sentences.

I recall the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. I remember a lot of prior protests that it shouldn't be done as it gave Creationism undeserved credit. I disagreed. In the end, it was generally agreed that Nye had demolished Ham's case before he'd even given it. I recall a reference to strata and the canine clade that undermined 'all the same kind' and when Ham's turn came, he presented the same chart, but with that specific clade left out. It was obvious that he was manipulating and selecting the data. And the final comment is now celebrated where Nye said that one out of place fossil (1) would make him rethink, but Ham said that no evidence would make him change his mind. Prior to the Dover/Kitzmiller case, nothing showed Creationism up as a fraud and hoax more than that debate.

(1) unless of course the strata had been dug into and messed up, like in 'washed in' fossils. - I had a few examples of that misrepresented by Creationists in the past.

[POI]

The point is; you believe in a falsehood, and that is and will continue to be the point being made here as it pertains to this discussion.

You keep barking up the wrong tree. So instead of repeating again and again, I'll try yet another approach.

Devil's advocate time --> My "belief in a falsehood" has virtually no bearing as to my rejecting Christianity. So again, you bringing up (evolution/abiogenesis), again and again, is irrelevant thus far in this exchange.

This is me, now, asking you to do so; before me and an audience. If you should convince me and/or the audience that your 'free thinking' assessment somehow also aligns with Genesis, then there is a feather in your cap So 'dazzle' me.

My free thinking assessment aligns with Genesis in the sense that; I am freely thinking about the truth value of "God created the heavens and the earth", and that certainly aligns with Genesis.

Right, and the question remains... When, and more importantly, how exactly do you know? We'll hopefully get to that below...

Many scientific disciplines converge and state the earth is very old (~4 billions years), via peer review, etc... - You say NO.

When they say the earth is that old, it isn't necessarily a hard, definitive answer of NO from me.

But more of a "I don't know about all of that" kind of "NO".

But, nevertheless, a NO.

Kent H. states the earth is (~6K years old), based upon Bible interpretation. You say NO here as well.

I don't know anyone that I agree with 100% on everything.

Not even Jesus?

You could disagree with Kent H. about many things... However, we are discussing the age of (3) things. (i.e.) The age of the earth, the age of humans, and the age of the flood. Do you still disagree with his assessment, regarding the ages of these (3) specific things? yes or no? I would assume you do, but I want to be sure.

He presents "evidence" to support that the earth is ~6K years old. You do not buy that assertion. Hence, what specific evidence does Kent H. present, which you reject as demonstrating 6K years, but instead supports 100K - 1,000,000?.?.?.?

Respectfully, correction; Kent presents evidence for/against the universe is billions of years old, and only justifies a 6k year old earth base on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The 100k-1,000,000 thang is all mines, sir.

Right. He rejects the "science", and used the Bible as his "alternative evidence". Which, according to him, is ~6K years. I'm now asking you. You reject the "science", so what 'evidence(s)' do you use instead? Or is this again where you just throw out the hunch/assumption (~100K - 1M)?

Please remember, you already admitted you have not done the work.

I also admit that Kent Hovind has done the work.

Kent H. uses the Bible as his alternative source. Thus far, you have not stated what your "alternative evidence/source(s)" might be?.?.?

Thus, you are merely, thus far, placing the cart before the horse.

Makes no sense.

Allow me to explain. Your assumption is that humans can only be a certain age because you already assume the earth is only a certain age. This is not sound reasoning unless you can tell me WHY the earth is nowhere near as old as 'collective science' states. You state you do not go by the Bible. SO what the heck do you reference?

Each claim needs to be demonstrated, upon it's own merit(s). Again, we are investigating (3) claims.

1. Age of the earth
2. Age of humans
3. Age of the flood

All three need to be independently verified, using 'evidence' to support each individual claim. Meaning, each and every claim above must stand upon it's own, using evidence, as well as then also coinciding with the correct progressive timeline. When all (3) are independently verified, and then placed together, does the timeline match?

Kent H. simply uses the Bible. I rely upon independent and multi-disciplinary scientific peer review. What do YOU use?

What evidence(s) suggests humans are no more than 100K years old?

I do not believe that humans coexisted on earth with dinosaurs, so whatever timeframe we'd like use as a gap between the two is fine, just as long as it isn't billions of years or 6k or less.

Now, you can take from that what you may...but my answer will not change.

'Science' states that dinosaurs were long gone >60 million years before the earliest humans. Does this mean you need to change/adjust your timeline(s) quite drastically already?

Please remember, we are focused on the claims from Genesis. If your logic does not support Genesis, then not only must you reject Genesis, but then also question the rest Remember?

Yeah, and focusing on the claims from Genesis; if my logic doesn't support Genesis, then that could mean that my logic is faulty, not the Genesis account.

Then this conversation is possible over, as demonstrated by the following 4 minute video. Quote - What is the point of doing science if it's only right if it agrees with the Bible?

This response is quite typical of many apologists, when held to the fire. You too are claiming I did not truly try

I am claiming to do what the Bible says.

BTW, tell that to Saul of Tarsus. He wasn't seeking Him. But Jesus presented Himself anyways. Again, the Bible tells it's readers that He answers prayer.

First off, two things can be true at the same time.

God can present himself to whoever he pleases (Paul), while also preferring you to seek him thus earning your reward.

Well, apparently Jesus does contact some without them asking, and, I also have and do seek Him. Heck, I'm asking you to perform intercessory prayer for me, since He does not seem to respond to me directly. Does He respond to your requests? If so, I will hear from Him. If I do not hear from Him, then maybe you are mistaken, and you are talking to yourself, as Jesus may not actually be answering your prayers.

So tell me 'Venom", am I stupid or evil? Because it most certainly CAN'T be that the Bible is mistaken about prayer, can it? The proof will be in the pudding. If I do not hear from Jesus, then Jesus does not answer your prayers either.

Second, Jesus said (to Doubting Thomas) "You've seen, therefore you believe; blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believes". (John 20:29).

Be one of those who have not seen, and STILL believes...

Oh, I do this all the time already, (i.e.) with wind, air, germs, electricity, etc... But then all mentioned unseen are more provable than such a claimed almighty 'god'

I'm asking you to pray for me. If He does not answer, then the Bible is again WRONG. Your only defense could be that I am either too stupid to see His contact, or a liar. Apparently, you are going with the liar position, thus far...

I said I would pray for you. Spare me the other riff raff.

Okay, you prayed. When should I expect a response?

[Diogenes]

I said I would pray for you. Spare me the other riff raff.

Brilliant! You have perfectly captured the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, uttering the insincere "I will pray for you, while mocking with "Spare me the other riff raff."

When the Pharisees practiced this kind of hypocrisy, Jesus responded:

You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me....

__ Matthew 15:7-9

[Tcg]

I said I would pray for you. Spare me the other riff raff.

Riff Raff refers to people not ideas:

Riff Raff - people with a bad reputation or of a low social class. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... /riff-raff

If you're going to use a pejorative in place of a reasoned argument at least pick an accurate one.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

You did not cite a single thing about evolution; like Hovind, your post is all bluster and hot air suggesting indoctrination instead of knowledge.

That is the way I feel about those that believe in evolution; indoctrination instead of knowledge.

Although the fact of evolution is obvious and simple to express (even Hovind admits to evolutionary change)

Hovind admits to micro-level changes, not macro.

one must have the knowledge of the actual details on a genomic basis to be able to discuss it intelligently.

Hovind does.

You haven't demonstrated you know anything about the subject.

I was gonna tell you the same thing.

Hovind simply cites the Bible as 'evidence' then talks as if the theory of evolution claims one species turns into another overnight, instead of over millions and billions of years.

Ahh, yes. Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of what Mr. Hovind teaches..because you speak as if you have knowledge on the issue, yet what you just stated is in contrary to the facts.

Anyone who has been following Kent Hovind knows that, not only does he acknowledge the theory of evolution has a "millions and billions of years" element to it, but this is in fact what he downright vehemently rejects as having no observational/scientific data supporting it.

So you are simply wrong in your claims that he "claims one species turns into another overnight".

That is blatantly false and for you to speak so boldly but yet so inaccurate about it...I find it quite disgusting, actually.

[Diogenes]

That is blatantly false and for you to speak so boldly but yet so inaccurate about it...I find it quite disgusting, actually.

Will you pray for me?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Riff Raff refers to people not ideas:

Riff Raff - people with a bad reputation or of a low social class. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... /riff-raff

If you're going to use a pejorative in place of a reasoned argument at least pick an accurate one.

Tcg

Hmm. Interesting.

What we have here is an attempted "Gotcha" moment, even with 4 likes to add cherries on top



That has to be the best "Gotcha" moment in the history of "Gotcha" moments...

Until now...

I see your cambridge online dictionary, and I raise you the online merriam-webster dictionary

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riffraff

Riff Raff
1a: disreputable persons
b: RABBLE
c: one of the riffraff
2: REFUSE, RUBBISH

Words of emphasis; Refuse, Rubbish.

So, lets define those words of emphasis..

Refuse
1: the worthless or useless part of something : LEAVINGS
2: TRASH, GARBAGE

Rubbish:
1: useless waste or rejected matter : TRASH
2: something that is worthless or nonsensical

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refuse

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rubbish

And newsflash, buddy; something that is worthless or nonsensical, can in fact be a people OR ideas.

Now, place those definitions in the context of what I said to POI, and you will get a clear understanding of the point I was portraying.

So, "Gotcha" moment: FAILED.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You keep barking up the wrong tree. So instead of repeating again and again, I'll try yet another approach.

Devil's advocate time --> My "belief in a falsehood" has virtually no bearing as to my rejecting Christianity. So again, you bringing up (evolution/abiogenesis), again and again, is irrelevant thus far in this exchange.

My bringing up evolution/abiogenesis again and again is independent of your rejection of Christianity.

I don't know what part of that you DON'T understand.

I mention evolution/abiogenesis only to attack a belief that you have, a belief of which I deem to be false....which is the exact same thing you are doing to me as it relates to the age of the universe.

Now, if you still fail to grasp such a simple concept, then I cannot help you, sir.

Right, and the question remains... When, and more importantly, how exactly do you know? We'll hopefully get to that below...

How do I know that God created the heavens and the earth?

Answer: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

NVM.

Not even Jesus?

Except Jesus.

You could disagree with Kent H. about many things... However, we are discussing the age of (3) things. (i.e.) The age of the earth, the age of humans, and the age of the flood. Do you still disagree with his assessment, regarding the ages of these (3) specific things? yes or no? I would assume you do, but I want to be sure.

When you listen to Kent H., you wont find any hardcore theological stuff being discussed...he mainly focuses on the Bible as it relates to science.

So to answer the question, the only things I disagree with him on (as far as I can tell) is..

1. The age of the universe.
2. The age of mankind.
3. That humans cohabited the earth with dinosaurs.

Remarkably, none of those disagreements are of theological significance.

Right. He rejects the "science", and used the Bible as his "alternative evidence".

So what?

Which, according to him, is ~6K years. I'm now asking you. You reject the "science", so what 'evidence(s)' do you use instead? Or is this again where you just throw out the hunch/assumption (~100K - 1M)?

He also has evidence to support a young earth, although I would call such evidence "theoretically speculative".

As for me, I already provided my reasons.

Again, you are asking the same questions that I've answered more than once. My answers will not change.

Kent H. uses the Bible as his alternative source.

For good reasons.

Kent H. believes that not only have the thinking in science historically failed him (and us), he also believes that there are downright lies/deception/misleading attempts in science and in science text books.

So, when so much corruption has plagued the system, he is appealing to the Bible, which, as far as he is concerned, has never been proven wrong and has a good track record of being proven right.

So, like I said, for good reasons...just like you feel justified in appealing to your scientific sources for good reasons.

Thus far, you have not stated what your "alternative evidence/source(s)" might be?.?.?

My answers will not change.

Allow me to explain. Your assumption is that humans can only be a certain age because you already assume the earth is only a certain age.

We all have our assumptions, don't we? Just like you also assume the earth is only a certain age.

This is not sound reasoning unless you can tell me WHY the earth is nowhere near as old as 'collective science' states. You state you do not go by the Bible. SO what the heck do you reference?

Again, I already answered this...and you wonder my responses get snarky.

I told you that I am led to believe that current scientific dating methods are questionable at best...so your "collective science" dating methodologies mean very little to nothing to me (but more on the very little side).

Each claim needs to be demonstrated, upon it's own merit(s). Again, we are investigating (3) claims.

1. Age of the earth
2. Age of humans
3. Age of the flood

All three need to be independently verified, using 'evidence' to support each individual claim. Meaning, each and every claim above must stand upon it's own, using evidence, as well as then also coinciding with the correct progressive timeline. When all (3) are independently verified, and then placed together, does the timeline match?

Once those dating methods are deemed unreliable (which it has), then it becomes the wild, wild west.

It is anybody's game.

Kent H. simply uses the Bible. I rely upon independent and multi-disciplinary scientific peer review. What do YOU use?

Your ignorance of Kent H. work is glaring. He uses the Bible while simultaneously destroying what you consider "science", and the "peers" that are spewing the theories.

'Science' states that dinosaurs were long gone >60 million years before the earliest humans.

So, whatever science says, you just go with the flow, huh? Sounds very religious'y.

Does this mean you need to change/adjust your timeline(s) quite drastically already?

I amend my beliefs as I see fit.

Then this conversation is possible over, as demonstrated by the following 4 minute video. Quote - What is the point of doing science if it's only right if it agrees with the Bible?

And that, my friend, is part of the great deception. To get the people to think that they are doing science, when in reality, they aren't.

Well, apparently Jesus does contact some without them asking

And no one is denying that.

People have also testified that they were living godless lives and they've had either sudden/gradual awakenings without seeking god....again, the great William Lane Craig is one of them.

Like I said, two things can be true at the same time.

, and, I also have and do seek Him.

I believe you.

Heck, I'm asking you to perform intercessory prayer for me, since He does not seem to respond to me directly. Does He respond to your requests? If so, I will hear from Him. If I do not hear from Him, then maybe you are mistaken, and you are talking to yourself, as Jesus may not actually be answering your prayers. So tell me 'Venom", am I stupid or evil? Because it most certainly CAN'T be that the Bible is mistaken about prayer, can it? The proof will be in the pudding. If I do not hear from Jesus, then Jesus does not answer your prayers either.

"If I do not hear from Jesus, then Jesus does not answer your prayers either"

1. Jesus does not answer my prayers.
2. Therefore, Jesus does not answer your prayers either.

Non sequitur.

But that aside..

Now, you have to realize that not everyone is going to have the Paul "road to Damascus" experience. But even as I shared with you before, Jesus said that we are even more blessed than those who have seen, so we need to not say "but how come he gets to have it, but I don't?"

According to Jesus, we are straight.

That being said, look; when it comes to belief in Jesus, I think the starting point for you would be going over the evidences that Christianity is true in the first place.

Looks like I will have to create a thread pertaining to such, and not necessarily the traditional evidences, but more so on hidden gems, the diamonds in the rough...those types of evidences that aren't necessarily talked about or even known.

But before I present such evidences, which will be in the form of recommended videos and/or reading material, perhaps you can say a prayer to Jesus and ask him to allow you give you, in your quest of knowledge for him, if he is out there, to grant you patience and understanding. To open your mind and your heart, and I am confident that your awakening will begin.

I've already prayed for you, so I reckon this is a good start.

Oh, I do this all the time already, (i.e.) with wind, air, germs, electricity, etc... But then all mentioned unseen are more provable than such a claimed almighty 'god'

As I said before and elsewhere...

The belt holds up the pants, but the belt loops hold up the belt.

So who is the real hero here?

Okay, you prayed. When should I expect a response?

Patience. We are on God's time. Not the other way around.