"Kent Hovind Vs A Real Scientist" Topic

I'm with Parzival on this – there should be 7.

We need a Train Wreck Icon….

No, first we need a "Hall Monitor" icon.

to be made solely of monomolecules

What's a monomolecule? 8)

No, first we need a "Hall Monitor" icon.

I was a prefect in grade 5 in a k-6 school. The prfects from grade 5 and 6 elected me head prefect (the grade 6s were really ed off).

So with that job experience, I will recommend to William that the OP be considered to have started a thread on a subject deemed inappropriate for this part of TMP and that the topic be nuked.
--
Tim

what's a monomolecule

Yeah, bad phrasing on my part. I was trying to get the concept of a monomolecular substance into a single word (made up). Doesn't really work, now that I read it again. Although it could be interpreted as a single molecule… or say, a helium molecule, which would of course simply be a single helium atom.

The payoff board is now paying off at the over.

I believe things because arguments satisfy my query. I don't believe other things because they don't. But if someone wants to debate/advocate then knock yourself out, but in an environment suited or designed for the purpose perhaps ?

I will recommend to William that the OP be considered to have started a thread on a subject deemed inappropriate for this part of TMP and that the topic be nuked.

If the topic is Creationism, isn't the Science board the place to debate a scientific theory?

Maybe because Creationism isn't science? It's religion. That's what the courts have said.

aack

I am all for Evolution. Compare the miniatures produced in the early 70s with the beauties we have now available. Although, keeping with the spirit of my reasoning, I am also in the side of Intelligent Design… and my proof is how much better are to put together Perrys' plastics than Victrix (at least the earliest ones!). Naturally, Creationism isn't bad either. After all, the idea of create a new range appeals to my wargaming brain (as part of Natural Selection wargamers get their reptilian brains replaced by wargaming brains in their earliest stages of development, while in their mother's womb); I can prove it empirically -if heretically- with the excitation I felt yesterday when the new Tyranids arrived to my shop! Ahhh, the Bliss!

(who is my little Tervigon? Who is? Who is?)

Agur (see you! in Basque)

If the topic is Creationism, isn't the Science board the place to debate a scientific theory?

No, that's like saying Scientists who think religion is nonsense, like that arse Dawkins, are only allowed to present their arguments from the pulpit of a church.

Gunfreak was very very clever. He read the rules, played by them to the letter and now several people are in the DH. I bet he is a regular laugh-a-minute to wargame against.

+ =

Pat

Bill asks:

If the topic is Creationism, isn't the Science board the place to debate a scientific theory?

That's the very question I asked you, Bill, in a PM last October. It was about the response of Creationist and ID scientists, of the findings that Paternal mtDNA was found in some individuals. The Creationist scientists were blowing the findings off, but other scientists thought that these would provide excellent markers for tracing evolution.

Your response:

"Sorry to remove your topic, but Creationism falls under religion, and can be discussed only on our Blue Fez sister site."

So let's see if I have this right:

Can't discuss Creationism here. That's Religion.
Can't discuss ID here. That's Religion
Can't discuss Cosmology here. That's Religion.
Can't discuss AGW here. That's Politics.

Traditionally, Science can only flourish due to the free dissemination of ideas. A good Science board should try to emulate that. Normal Forum rules of etiquette should apply, and that is it. Otherwise get rid of the Science board itself. No Science board is better than the hobbled version we have now.

Bowman,

This is TMP; your first mistake was to expect consistency, the second fairness.

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.

Subtlety is not terribly apropos at TMP.
Best just to be forthright.
-Kle.

isn't the Science board the place to debate a scientific theory?

It is, but Creationism isn't a scientific theory. It isn't even a hypothesis, for it offers no way to test it. The hypothesis "Washing my car makes it rain in my neighbourhood" is testable.

Evolutionary Theory makes specific predictions about previously undiscovered species (as well as animals we know about, but haven't yet put against the predictions). If an animal doesn't fit, any modifications made to the theory to account for this must also be applicable to all animals so far placed against the theory. And yes, theories CAN be modified in the light of new facts, a bit like diagnosing problems can be informed by new discoveries; if they weren't flint knapping would still be a major skill.

For any Design proposition to be treated as science the first thing that must be done is the proponents of design to put forward testable conditions. Note it is not the job of evolutionists to disprove the existance of a creator. 'There is no designer' is not actually a position, rather it is shorthand for 'there is no proof of a designer'.

Imagine it this way. Someone who hates the set of rules you play says (in all seriousness) "You only play them because the invisible pink unicorns use mind control to make you." Ehich is the more reasonable position – you have to prove there are no unicorns, or he has to provides evidence such unicorns exist?

Gunfreak was very very clever. He read the rules, played by them to the letter and now several people are in the DH. I bet he is a regular laugh-a-minute to wargame against.

No actualy I'm apalled anyone let alone 6 people got DHs becasue of my thread, Especaly Terrement since we got in a heated bebate and he didn't even want the decussion.

Sorry Everyone. It was not my idea to start an actual heated bebate, I posted the video as a light harted jab at the ignorance of creatinists compeard to actual scientist. Not a jab at religion, and I didn't actualy expect anyone to take offence to it, as the die hard creatinists on this forum usualy stay in the fez.

I posted this becasue we have had many a descussion about evolution before, just look at the 20 page darwin day thread.

Sorry my fault, could Bill close this thread before anybody els get DHs, and would he concider letting out those that got there becasue of my thread?

Your response:

"Sorry to remove your topic, but Creationism falls under religion, and can be discussed only on our Blue Fez sister site."

Apparently I'm human.

Sorry my fault, could Bill close this thread before anybody els get DHs…

We don't close topics on TMP. Never have.

…and would he concider letting out those that got there becasue of my thread?

Why leniency for these miscreants, compared to the other miscreants?

Because I was directly/inderectly responisble for their DHing and I don't like that.

Some might even go so far as saying I bated Terrement tho not on purpos, but I knew the way the whole descussion was going, so I simply quit it before it went to far, but it was to little to late, and Terrement got caught up in it.

If the topic is Creationism, isn't the Science board the place to debate a scientific theory

That's the problem, it's not. It doesn't take into account all observations that have been made and it is a "creation" of religious people. Science and relihon are separate entities and unrelated, but a number of people on both sides don't seem to understand that. Creationism would be the same thing as those dolts who created a religon out of downloading which was just recognized in Sweden last month.

Creationism is a religous creation by people who don't understand what science is about and see the gift people have been given to observe the world around them as a threat. How the perception as the scientific method became a threat is beyond me. They seem to be able to easily accept the technology that has been born of applying the methodology of science selectively. "Creation" is a religous term and concept and so is creationism which comes from the religous story of creation.

True science doesn't ridicule different theories like the first person in the video does.

Gunfreak should be in the doghouse, Bill.

We don't close topics on TMP. Never have.

Soooo, the topics that appear with "There is no id number" have not been closed?
--
Tim

@Bill

Apparently I'm human

Yes you are, Bill. I've even been accused of that myself sometimes.

@Tim

Science and religion are separate entities and unrelated, but a number of people on both sides don't seem to understand that.

Tim, you make that sound cut and dry, black and white. The actual debate is much more complex. You are advocating the "non-overlapping magisteria" argument from the late Steven J. Gould. Many disagree with him including the atheistic Richard Dawkins, and the Roman Catholic Kenneth Miller. There is more to this debate. Too bad you have such a low opinion of Dawkins. He provides some well reasoned, logical arguments against Gould's view, if you'd avail yourself to read his books.

It hard to see the "non-overlapping" part to the debate if you followed the recent situations at State school boards in the US, or if you are concerned (like myself) that this nonsense moves north of the border.

Gunfreak should be in the doghouse, Bill.

Where is the "face palm" smiley?

@Parzival
Your "Straw man" comment to Gunfreak is not fair. As Gunfreak stated to you, there are many more crazier, more extreme, more fringe characters to choose from. Since you don't know, Ken Hovind is a well thought of, and respected member of the Creation Science and Intelligent Design field. His current legal woes stem from the IRS, and have nothing to do with this topic. His stupidity lies well within the reserve of his "scientific" work.

@Gunfreak
I'm with you on this, buddy. It's good to have the cob-webs shaken out of this board every once and a while. Pushing the envelope should be encouraged on the Science Board, provided courteous forum etiquette is still maintained. I'm also sorry anyone had to be DH'd over this.

Soooo, the topics that appear with "There is no id number" have not been closed?

No, they have been nuked. Not the same as "closed so no more people may post."

*snap* *snur* and the buttered bread….

Another user DHed, well will the horror stop, this thread is going to haunt me for the rest of my life.

The horror, the horror.

Maybe because Creationism isn't science? It's religion. That's what the courts have said.

Atheism has been recognised as a religion by the Supreme Court in the US since 1961 and many atheist/humanist organisations enjoy the same tax breaks as religions….

So, it appears this is a religious thread Bill.

Science is not atheist. It is secular. I do realise there are some who cannot tell the difference.

Science is not atheist. It is secular. I do realise there are some who cannot tell the difference.

And did I say they were…? No, misquoted as usual… yet, an atheist without any sort of scientific evidence to back up his/her belief system clearly exhibits total blind faith in his/her beliefs.

Science may not be "atheist" in and of itself but interpretations of scientific evidence are certainly used by atheists to support their godless world view – true?

I pointed out that the US Supreme court has recognised atheism as a religion since 1961. So, the argument often used that atheism is not a relgion is incorrect… unless you're suggesting the Supreme Court got it wrong?

I wonder then what the implications of that are for decisions like the those of the Dover Trial, etc…?

1/ If there is no evidence for something, it is not science.

2/ I am not sure why you are blathering about atheism. Science is just not the same thing as atheism, even when science does not happen to confirm what you were taught in Sunday School before your Myelin sheathing set.

3/ I just looked it up. The Supreme Court of the United States of America did NOT rule that atheism is a religion. They ruled that it should be afforded the same first amendment rights as a religion.

I pointed out that the US Supreme court has recognised atheism as a religion since 1961. So, the argument often used that atheism is not a relgion is incorrect… unless you're suggesting the Supreme Court got it wrong?

Leave it to TJ to get his facts spectacularly wrong (consider the source). The Supreme considers Atheism "like a region" when dealing with legal issues involving the First Amendment. From 7th Circuit Supreme Court ruling:

"… whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."

I suppose not collecting stamps is considered a hobby by TJ also.

Just to make things clear, creationism isn't science, but the qestion wether creatinism is science or not, is a scientific question.

They say the earth is 6000 years old, and yes it's based on religion, but the only way to disprove it is to use science.

So the question is, how old is the earth, and that is a scientific question.