"Kent Hovind Vs A Real Scientist" Topic

YouTube link

oh for sake Gunfreak, if you want to start one of these threads go do it on Frothers or something. I am antitheist as anyone, but what do these sorts of threads have to do with freaking wargaming?

Also, why start a thread questioning this guy's plausibility when , to quote Wikipedia "Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the FPC Satellite Camp of the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado."

Pat

The guy who created the video would seem more credible if he didn't write such dreck as…

It's a no contest

First, that's incorrect English. Second, when did this become a sporting match?

Oh, and why does the "scientist" get a soaring musical track?

Are we supposed to get all weepy about the idea of all being connected, atomically? Seems like Mr. Scientist is selling his own brand of "spirituality" here…

For Santa's sake, Bill, don't try and argue with it!

(Although is a criticism of someone's english the best you can come up with?)

Aaaaaargh now you have Me doing it.

Pat

Kind of surprised at the reactions. The original post/video doesn't offer enough substance to even get worked up about. About as moving as a potato chip commercial.

Hell will freeze over before I click on the link, but I can answer this:

what do these sorts of threads have to do with freaking wargaming?

Nothing.
Which is why he posted it on the section of TMP specifically reserved for non-wargaming discussion.
-Kle.

Gunfreak's idea of "real" science and "real" scientists is always an interesting concept.

JJ

Sure Kleb, but what I was hinting at, an article about a creationist ? There isn't a section where arguing the pros and cons of Religious belief is appropriate.

Pat

What it is is a classic straw man argument— pick the worst possible example of any position, then generalize it to present it as the belief, attitude or intellectual ability of everyone who holds anything remotely connected to the said position (even if it isn't actually the same at all), and declare yourself affirmed in your own right-thinking.

In the end, it becomes little more than the sound of one hand clapping one's own back.

This is one of the reasons one should abstain from any sort of religious or political debate anywhere on TMP (or the Internet in general). Nobody is actually listening to what you have to say. It's not a debate or a discussion at all, just back and forth posturing and rhetorical vomit.

oh for sake Gunfreak, if you want to start one of these threads go do it on Frothers or something. I am antitheist as anyone, but what do these sorts of threads have to do with freaking wargaming?

Also, why start a thread questioning this guy's plausibility when , to quote Wikipedia "Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the FPC Satellite Camp of the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado."

Pat

This has nothing to do with theism, but ignorance, creationism isn't a religion, it's ignorance.

And the video is not about dissing religion, but to show the beauty of the real world

What it is is a classic straw man argument— pick the worst possible example of any position, then generalize it to present it as the belief, attitude or intellectual ability of everyone who holds anything remotely connected to the said position (even if it isn't actually the same at all), and declare yourself affirmed in your own right-thinking.

If you think that is the worst possible example, then you don't know creationists. This is what millions of people actualy think. And there are far worse exampeles then this.

This has nothing to do with theism, but ignorance, creationism isn't a religion, it's ignorance.

So you say.
Next you will be claiming that a jersey is not a shirt.

This is EXACTLY the reason why The Editor abolished the Religion Board many moons ago.
Your premise is grounded in insult, so it DESERVES to be nuked.

This is textbook Blue Fez.

The Editor cannot pick and choose which discussions that border on religion should be "allowed" on TMP. If the policy is to nuke one, then all should be nuked.
This is not exactly inquiring if the Arianism of the Visigoths had any relation to Aryanism, or which Byzantine generals were Nestorian. This is pure advocacy.

Creationism stands in oposission to science, hence it's in the science board

Creationism does not stand in opisision to islam, christianity, hinduism, atheism, agnostisism, buddism ect.

Hence it's not a religous debate.

Yes, your avrage creationist is religous, But so is your avrage republican, yet when you talk about republicans, you are talking politics not religion.

Yes, Republicans are generarly religous, but wanting lower taxes or more guns is still not a religous argument!

but wanting lower taxes or more guns is still not a religous argument!

You ain't from Texas is you?

Creationism stands in oposission to science…

So YOU say.
Adherents of "creation science" might differ.

Creationism and survives due to one thing, ignorance. And not ignorance about science, but ignorance about . Show me a creationist or and I will bet you, that person has read very little about , and very little from . Oh they have had read at them or only read parts they have been instructed to, by , but they haven't read it themselves. In fact most discourage their members from reading themselves; their main argument being that unless you are you are very likely .

This is another instance where I agree with the message… creationism is NOT science, it IS ignorance, but I dislike the nature of the messenger… the linked video is dumb.

Still, it belongs on the 'science' board because it is (sort of) about science confronting superstition and make-believe.
Would anyone be upset if it were a physicist saying there was no reason to worry over letting black cats cross your path?
(actually… someone probably would).

If it were a religious discussion it would be more along the lines of 'Did God make the Earth in seven days or did it pop out of a lotus blossom on Lord Vishnu's belly?'
Besides, .

There are a lot of silly people out there who believe a lot of silly things… if you're gonna pussyfoot around whenever one of them doesn't like the facts you might as well banish the 'Science' board to the Blue Fez as well.

OK.
The over/under line on DH suspensions ahs been set at 3. Contact your local bookie.

This will not end well.

Have fun!

Take off and nuke the thread from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

So YOU say.
Adherents of "creation science" might differ.

Oh… I see.
I can do that too!
"Fairy Science"
"UFO science"
"Magic science"
I'll just add 'science' to the end of whatever thing I want to believe and it will sound like I've got actual evidence and logic to support it!!!

I'll even build a museum with flashy exhibits to show 'scientifically' how 'ancient astronauts' built the pyramids and how Gandalf (the real, historical Gandalf) defeated the Balrog (the REAL one).

I never ever ever understood the debate in the US or from idiots like Dawkins over science versus faith. They are two completely different areas which can happily and beautifully co-exist together – they do for me and many, many like me.

The world around us is extrodinarily beautiful amd amazing. Many humans around us are extrodinarily ugly in their outlook and just wilfully ignorant.
--
Tim

I never ever ever understood the debate in the US or from idiots like Dawkins over science versus faith.

That's a different debate though… science can only (legitimately) comment on what it can see and measure and extrapolate from existing evidence. Which is why it CAN legitimately comment on the mechanisms of how life evolved on Earth.

Setting aside all the acrimony and religious mutterings in the thread, I will say that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a very intelligent and charismatic writer and speaker. If you ever get a chance to attend one of his talks, do so.

His books are also very well written and he presents his ideas in an easy-to-understand way, unlike many science writers who seem to think the the more obtusely presented a concept is, the better.

He is also one of the most soft-spoken and least confrontational and argumentative men I've even seen, so I resent that YouTuber using him as he did. (Yeah, I know, expecting class from a YouTuber . . .)

Creationism does not stand in opisision to islam, christianity, hinduism, atheism, agnostisism, buddism ect.

Hence it's not a religous debate.

So you are claiming that all of these religions concepts of the beginning of things agree with the creationists?

It appears that once again you know nothing of what you so loudly assert.

link

link

link

But, don't let that stop you. Then again, you never have.

JJ

The mere fact that posters to this thread are describing those they do not agree with as "idiots", and contrary opinions as "ignorance" is reason enough to nuke this.

YOUR opinions are the ONLY intelligent ones, right? You are as adamant and respectful as the most raging fundamentalist. In fact, on this matter, you ARE a fundamentalist.

"So you are claiming that all of these religions concepts of the beginning of things agree with the creationists?

It appears that once again you know nothing of what you so loudly assert.
"

You should stop drinking what ever you are drinking, you have had enough, I have not said anything like it.

Creatinism isn't christian, it isn't muslim or hindu or jewish, it's just ignorance.

Hence creationism vs evolution is not a relgions debate, but a science debate, or more about education vs not education.

So AGAIN NOT A RELIGIOUS DEBETE, but one of science and not science, one of education and not education, one of knowlage and ingnorance.

So AGAIN NOT A RELIGIOUS DEBETE, but one of science and not science, one of education and not education, one of knowlage and ingnorance.

If the religions disagree with either evolutionism or creationism, which they do, it is by definition a religious debate. Your writing in caps doesn't change that simple fact. Did you even bother to read the links as to what those religions believe, or just go into one of your typical knee-jerk responses like you love to do on the Fez?

The Editor cannot pick and choose which discussions that border on religion should be "allowed" on TMP.

Actually, he can and does all the time. His page his rules. Consistent or not. Logical or not. Like them or not. Know what they are or not.

It matters not.

JJ

Sorry JOhn, I am the only one who used "idiot" describing dawkins. I meant it is incredibly stupid to argue one or the other (faith versus science). My view is that religon and science are two completely different things and dawkins who tries to be very hurtful in going on about faith has no basis is just as much an idiot as a moron who belittles conclusions about the origins of the planet and life as "a dog coming from a rock".

When people are arguing and being hurtful over two completely different things but trying to have one replace the other for two areas of understanding, that's ing stupid and idiotic.
--
Tim

What the main line says about a topic has no bearing on what the people acualy belive.

If you had any knowlage of the topic you would know that.

DO YOU SEE THE POINT

"If the religions disagree with either evolutionism or creationism, which they do, it is by definition a religious debate. "

So if I say that rocks make good eating. that automaticaly makes rocks a delacacy.

If an idot says bats are birds, dosn't mean bats are birds

You seem to be an expert on what idiots say. I'm guessing it comes from much practice.

DO YOU SEE THE POINT

Yes but you don't. What people do has no bearing on what the church (any religion) teaches. If a religion holds that either creationism is true, or evolution is true as a matter of faith, then your discussion is a religious argument.

So if I say that rocks make good eating. that automaticaly makes rocks a delacacy.

I didn't know that you considered yourself on the same level of various pontiffs or other leaders of world religions and therefore capable of pronouncing religious dogma. I also wonder what rocks you prefer to eat.

You apparently can't tell the difference between religious doctrine and the nonsense you babble.

But you are fun to listen to. Please continue.

I don't expect you to understand that but look forward to more shoe-pounding and capital letters from you.

JJ

A reminder: This is the science board. You may discuss the pros and cons of various scientific positions and theories here. It is not a place to discuss what religions believe – if you wish to do that, you must adjourn to our sister site, The Blue Fez.

If the religions disagree with either evolutionism or creationism, which they do, it is by definition a religious debate.

Just because some religious person, somewhere, might have an opinion about a subject doesn't make any discussion of that thing a religious matter.

Science and rational thinking do have something to say about how life came to be on this planet, how it reached its current state. They have strong factual evidence and rational arguments. To attempt to disagree with that evidence and rational thought with anything OTHER than evidence and rational thought is pretty much ridiculous… something an idiot would do… and therefor 'idiotic'.

The mere fact that posters to this thread are describing those they do not agree with as "idiots", and contrary opinions as "ignorance" is reason enough to nuke this.

How would someone be dealt with who attempted, seriously, to present 'evidence' that Napoleon was a woman or that George Washington was gay? Just about the same I'd expect.
If he were stubborn enough about it I'm pretty sure 'idiot' and 'ignorance' would be among the words aimed at him. Correctly I'd say.
What if he said his religion told him so? Should everyone back off and respect his opinion?

Bill,

I'm not discussing what the religions believe, simply making the point that whatever they believe, either way, if they take a position as a matter of faith then this is by definition a religious discussion, contrary to Gunfreak's assertions.

I'm also commenting on the fallacies in his logic.

Just because some religious person, somewhere, might have an opinion about a subject doesn't make any discussion of that thing a religious matter.

Not some person. I'm speaking of that religion's theology. So if you are taking a position that agrees with that dogma or disagrees with that dogma, it is a religious discussion in that context.

AFAIK, neither of those cross the invisible line, but just in case, I'm going to go fix myself a steaming hot mug of my favorite Capt. Blackie's brew, sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

JJ

The betting line is now closed.
We have our first DH.

Not some person. I'm speaking of that religion's theology. So if you are taking a position that agrees with that dogma or disagrees with that dogma, it is a religious discussion in that context.

Semantics.
How many people does it take to make a 'theology' or a 'dogma'?
If some part of that Theology crosses over into the territory of scientific knowledge… where science has something to say on the matter… then I think it's fine to present the scientific evidence to the contrary. It's not a religious discussion once science and rational thought step in.
Gunfreak's OP… while faulty… was meant to present a valid scientific counterpoint to an irrational (and erroneous) claim. The territory of science is facts, evidence, rational argument… theology and dogma should not cross swords with it… just as science shouldn't spout off about spirituality… unless it's in terms of brain chemistry and why people feel the need to believe such things.

Bible is a snip word. Is that new?

The territory of science is facts, evidence, rational argument… just as science shouldn't spout off about

You've said it way better than I tried to do.
--
Tim

I think it's fine to present the scientific evidence to the contrary. It's not a religious discussion once science and rational thought step in.

We'll have to disagree. I'm not fighting for or against either evolution or creationism here. But

By definition, much of science and

The territory of science is facts, evidence, rational argument…

As illustrated by how many times science has declared something to be true only to be found wrong later?

"Rational" and "facts" and "evidence" in a number of scientific discussions today also seem to be tied to the underlying beliefs and political positions of the folks in question. While I'll happily agree with you that what you state is what science should be, there are sadly too many cases where I think it is not.

Science is crossing the lines with religion in ways that some, perhaps many of us find unthinkable and unacceptable.

I won't go into it here for fear of where it will lead, but would be happy to email you some links so you can decide for yourself. I'm at parusj@saic.com since I can't PM you.

JJ

So it will remain a religious discussion when the "science" whatever it might be runs counter to the teachings of the affected religion.

Fine, let the religious folks discuss it, amongst themselves. Unless they have some form of solid evidence that disputes the scientific viewpoint they have no business in a discussion of facts and rational suppositions (science).

As illustrated by how many times science has declared something to be true only to be found wrong later?

Sure, because what showed those earlier conjectures to be incorrect was more information, new facts, better science. Science is a process of understanding… not .
If someone wants to prove evolution is wrong they need to come at it with better science.

Religions would offer that on matters of faith, science should not cross swords with them.

I've said as much already. Most scientists I know of would agree with that… but evolution is not a 'matter of faith' just because . There is good solid scientific evidence to support evolution.

While I'll happily agree with you that what you state is what science should be, there are sadly too many cases where I think it is not.

I'll agree with this… though probably not in the specifics of which cases qualify. Humans are fallible… we tend to seek out our corners and 'make a stand'… which isn't very rational, but hard to avoid. Luckily the scientific community has a habit of policing their own, over time. 'Good' science should always be challenging the claims of the past… holding them up to newer and better sources of light.

Science is crossing the lines with religion in ways that some, perhaps many of us find unthinkable and unacceptable.

I could equally say that

Ask a lawyer: everything is semantics.

Behold, for to find the question for which the answer is 42~ so look thou unto thy towel and be comforted~

Bible is a snip word. Is that new?

Discussing what the Bible teaches would stray into religion, which is not allowed on the TMP forums.

Train wreck in action. John I'll take your bet and raise you one to 4 in de DH.

For those arguing that this thread is a discussion of one type of science vs. another type, I will point out that since at least the 1960s US judges have consistently held that creationism and ID are intrinsicly religious in nature. So, at its heart, this thread IS a discussion of religion vs. science. I don't know if that warrants its nuking – that's Bill's call.

Next you will be claiming that a jersey is not a shirt.

Surely, a Jersey is a breed of cow ?

Bill, I think this discussion is little more than an attempt to provoke the very mass DHing that it has produced. The OP may claim he's trying to address a question of science, but that claim is so thin as to be made solely of monomolecules. He is clearly engaged in a very broad attack on religious beliefs, not a support of science at all. Yes, he may have linked to a video featuring an ignoramus, but the intent of the link goes far beyond simply refuting that ignoramus or his specific beliefs, as the above discussion clearly reveals, into a generalized attack on faith of any sort. This remains the point of my original response, and nothing the OP has stated contradicts it— rather his subsequent statements and attitude are clear evidence that it has been his intent all along. If you then are going to DH others for responding to this intent (whether in opposition or support), I would suggest that the only just response is to DH the OP as well. And if you still argue that he has not raised a religious issue on TMP, certainly the trolling rule must be considered as regard to this thread, which is clearly meant to be inflammatory?

By the way, I am not trying to silence this thread at all. Nuke or keep as you see fit. But if you decide to keep, it is completely inappropriate to nuke legitimate responses to the OP or his subsequent statements; rather than respecting the rules of TMP, this unfairly promotes one deliberate act of antagonism over what can only be called perfectly understandable and in fact quite reasonable responses to the same. One cannot protect one individual's opinions and not protect the opinions of those who disagree, at least not and be operating under either the realms of justice or fairness (nor, for that matter science).

Nuke the thread and all such threads, or bear with the consequences of allowing the thread to continue, and let all speak upon it freely. To do otherwise is to succumb to manipulation by the OP, which I suspect was his intent all along.

As it is, I find that this thread, as intended by the OP, has nothing at all to do with science on any level.

P.S. I perfectly accept that life develops through the process of evolution, that the Universe was formed in the Big Bang (or something equivalent) according to physical science as we currently understand it, and that there is a Creator behind it all, whom the Universe itself is the scientific evidence thereof. Whether one wishes to debate on those terms rather than the obnoxious silliness of Hovind and his ilk is, however, by definition both a religious and scientific discussion. One cannot make it one without the other. By definition, anything involving God is religion, and anything involving the Universe is science; but the two meet at the point of His Existence and its origin, and become inseparable. (Indeed, any arguments about the origin of the Universe beyond what physical evidence we can actually observe are nothing but pure metaphysical speculation— that is, religion— and the truly objective scientists know this full well ( I cite no less than George Ellis on this point)). If these statements are religion, DH me, too. But I think they are not, but rather simply truth.

As to the rest of our readers, enjoy the .

We need a Train Wreck Icon….

kill the thread

Six down. I was soooo close. : ( Oh well. Wait, is that a blown out trestle ahead?