@pauluc: That Kent Hovind is a slick charlatan is a …

Comment on The Basis of Biblical Credibility by Bob Helm.

@pauluc: That Kent Hovind is a slick charlatan is a fact. And the other Ph.D. trained scientists you mentioned would agree with me. The nonsense that Kent has spouted has no bearing on this subject, and your argument about guilt by association doesn’t work. Remember, there was also a slick Darwinist charlatan who constructed Piltdown Man from a medieval human skull and the jaw of an orangutan. But even though many doctoral dissertations were written on that ridiculous fake, I will not slur modern Darwinists with it! But Paul, everyone who has a serious hypothesis about the formation of the Grand Canyon has formulated it using certain presuppositions – which means that everyone has a vested interest, not just the creationists. When you look at the Grand Canyon through your uniformitarian glasses, their “story” does not seem credible. However, when I look at the Grand Canyon, it practically screams catastrophe, but I am looking at it through different glasses than you are.

Bob Helm Also Commented

The Basis of Biblical Credibility
@pauluc: Paul, I just want to interject that yes, I believe population genetics is a fully legitimate scientific exercise. However, while I find genetics fascinating, my knowledge of it is very limited, so I’m going to remain quiet as far as blogging is concerned and allow you and Sean to battle it out. I’m reading your comments, but not interjecting mine.


The Basis of Biblical Credibility
@Gene Fortner: Gene, thanks again for your insights. I would suggest that the Great Unconformity probably represents the onset of the Genesis Flood.


The Basis of Biblical Credibility
@Gene Fortner: Gene, your observations regarding the Coconino Sandstone are excellent. And they affirm the importance of Louis Agassiz’ dictum, “Study nature, not books.” It is very easy to quote some supposed authority on the Coconino Sandstone, but if a person really wants to understand that formation, it must be viewed firsthand. After all, the supposed authority could be mistaken! I wonder if our friend, Paul Cameron, has actually been to the Grand Canyon to see the Coconino Sandstone. I have, and what you have said about the flat contact line with the water-laid Hermit Shale is true. If the Coconino Sandstone had an eolian origin, that flat contact line with a water-laid deposit doesn’t make any sense.


Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.


Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.


Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
@Ervin Taylor: Sean has answered your question for me. He has provided the same answer I would give.