Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jared v. Hovind
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 61 of 118 (306296)
04-24-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dan Carroll
04-24-2006 10:23 AM


Re: Hovind Right On Much
My personal favorite... "I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty."
In all fairness, you've got to be careful with this site, since it does engage in the occasional quote mining. In context, this doesn't sound as bad is it looks out of context. In the (similar but not exactly the same) version I heard, he was jokingly poking fun at the ignorance of teenagers. That is, its not meant to be taken as a serious scientific phrase.
That said, I recognize hearing some of the other stuff in context and its not meant to be taken as a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-24-2006 10:23 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-24-2006 12:23 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 118 (306297)
04-24-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous
04-24-2006 12:17 PM


Re: Hovind Right On Much
Ut... my mistake for not checking the source of the quote. Won't be using that one again.

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2006 12:17 PM Modulous has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 118 (306304)
04-24-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
04-23-2006 10:55 PM


Re: Curious
Well Schraf, madear, it appears that you've also completely ignored all of the corrections, debates, and outright fights that we religious fundy-type folks get into with each other over evidence and interpretation and whatnot.
It would, in fact, be impossible to ignore the havok centuries of sectarian conflict as wrought on our civilization; after all, when the religious get into disputes over evidence and interpretation and whatnot, people are usually killed.
I don't recall anyone dying as a result of relativity surplanting classical physics; even Newton and Liebniz were able to carry on their decades-long disagreement about the origin of calculus without anyone actually killing each other. (In the interests of full disclosure, however, I did observe an outcast lepidopterist mauled beyond recognition at the most recent branch meeting of the Entomological Society of America.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 04-23-2006 10:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 64 of 118 (306305)
04-24-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jared Hoag
04-21-2006 2:32 AM


Re: I have arrived...
Hi Jared,
I just started listening to your calls to Hovind. I don't want to speak to soon but wanted to offer some advice for future calls. Hovind (and this is an example of his deception, not belief) likes to call on anonymous sources to support wild claims. He needs to be called on these!
He makes stetements that are obviously untrue that typically begin with "I was debating a university professor and he said..." usually ending in some ridiculous statement, usually supporting some classic creationist falsehood (no transitionals, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc). I would like to see these claims called out. Just my 2 cents worth.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jared Hoag, posted 04-21-2006 2:32 AM Jared Hoag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Jared Hoag, posted 04-27-2006 12:16 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6082 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 65 of 118 (306349)
04-24-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jared Hoag
04-21-2006 2:32 AM


Re: I have arrived...
My experience with evolutionary theory has inspired me in many, many ways. I'm considering going back to college to get an undergrad degree in biology so that I can work on a PhD in some biological field. Perhaps a blend of evolution and mathematics; I predict this is an emerging field of serious import
.
Good for you. Go for it. Perhaps, you can enlighten us with your speciality in biophysics and mathematics. I have one question for everybody here. Ph.D is a Ph.D no matter where it comes from. What about the mediocre Ph.D's from prestigious universities? What are they accomplishing. Dr.Hovind may be a "Cook". But, he has stirred up lot of controversy. He is making many in academics to self examine their own positions. He must be complimented atleast for this. This is an accomplishment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jared Hoag, posted 04-21-2006 2:32 AM Jared Hoag has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 04-24-2006 9:37 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2006 10:20 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 68 by ReverendDG, posted 04-24-2006 10:47 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 75 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-25-2006 9:48 AM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 76 by nator, posted 04-25-2006 3:07 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2006 3:29 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 66 of 118 (306351)
04-24-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:32 PM


and again
He is making many in academics to self examine their own positions.
You have managed to keep your 100% streak up. This is not true at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 118 (306362)
04-24-2006 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:32 PM


Re: Keeping The Establishment Accountable
I have to agree, Inkorrekt. Were it not for Hovind, Gish, Morris, and a host of other counterparts, regardless of their faults, the established science would be left much less accountable for their own claims.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 04-24-2006 10:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 77 by nator, posted 04-25-2006 3:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 68 of 118 (306365)
04-24-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:32 PM


Re: I have arrived...
But, he has stirred up lot of controversy. He is making many in academics to self examine their own positions. He must be complimented atleast for this. This is an accomplishment.
No, i don't think he makes anyone wonder about thier positions, he doesn't even argue on a level where they would do this, all of his arguments are distortions or outright misinformation
if anything the academics wonder about his sanity..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 69 of 118 (306367)
04-24-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
04-24-2006 10:20 PM


Re: Keeping The Establishment Accountable
Were it not for Hovind, Gish, Morris, and a host of other counterparts, regardless of their faults, the established science would be left much less accountable for their own claims.
I'm sorry Buz but this is not the case. Have you spent some time reading science? Say Scientific American, or Science magazine? Science is a competitive endeavor by scientist who have a range of abilities.
Take the recent claims of Cloning in South Korea. Did you follow that? You might try reading this book:
The double helix : a personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA Book
... The double helix : a personal account of the ...
Author : Watson, James D., 1928-
Publisher, Date : New York : Touchstone, 2001, c1996. - Edition : 1st Touchstone ed.
ISBN : 074321630X (pbk.) - Description : xx, 226 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. ; 22 cm.
Call Number : 574.873282 WATSON 1996
Scientist debate and challenge one another on issues. Academia is not a monolithic group of scientist who have agreed on a religious dogma and then have set out to compete with your church. That is totally fantasy.
Scientist have differing theories and opinions and they want to be right but they can't argue from sacred texts and interpretations of ancient languages. They have to demonstrate solid evidence and experimental design. Slowly consensus emerges and scientific knowledge moves ahead.
The Kent Hovinds are exploiting the ignorance about science of pious people who want to be told that what they find disquieting about science is false. So he markets his stuff and makes some money but he isn't doing science and nothing he says factors into the science that is being done.
He is a fraud and a con man an ancient profession back when his kind made a living peddling peices of the true cross and other relics.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2006 10:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 04-25-2006 11:12 PM lfen has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 118 (306370)
04-24-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Modulous
04-24-2006 8:36 AM


Re: What Is Logical?
Modulous writes:
Some of the things we have learned about the universe seem illogical because they don't make 'sense'. As far as I am aware, high level physics is rigidly logical since it is based on maths, it just produces results that are so alien to our experience that they feel 'wrong' in some way.
Hence, when dealing with such concepts as cosmology, it pays to go with the actual logic and ignore our logic-sense. Unfortunately the actual logic (maths) can be difficult to follow without a lot of training.
1. Logic is closely related to reason/reasonable/reasoning. Math can be tricky and produce unreasonable/illogical conclusions, depending on how it is applied and how what is observed is interpreted. What may be logical to one may be totally illogical to another. Some believe some scientists actually have too much faith in the math they use to come to some of their conclusions, somewhat like other folks consider Biblicalists as having too much faith in the credibility of the Biblical record, regardless of the archeological discoveries, the fulfilled prophecies and other evidence some of us fundamentalists use to support it.
2. Though mathmatic calculations may produce some logical conclusions, depending on how it is applied, logic is not math. Logic, relative to math, depends on how reasonable the conclusions are because logic is reasoning. Therefore, logic determines whether the math calculation has been reasonable. Whether or not this is so will often be determined on interpretation of what is observed. Scientists of all stripes bang heads together debating these things.
3. Millions, including some scientists, for example reason that there's just to much complexity, order and harmony in what is observed to justify any mathmatic calculations which may appear to debunk ID and consider math calculations and other science experiments to be too illogical and unreasonable to have been accomplished absent from ID.
4. When folks get into debates on things like the outside of, properties of space, the before the BB and things like that, often some conclusions of some are considered totally illogical and unreasonable, no matter how the math is applied.
5. Reasonable and Sensible relate as to definiton. My dictionary relates them, crossreferencing both reasonable and sensible, though not number one on the list of definitions.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 04-24-2006 8:36 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 04-24-2006 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2006 2:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2006 6:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 71 of 118 (306377)
04-24-2006 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
04-24-2006 11:15 PM


Having faith in the math.
Math can be tricky and produce unreasonable/illogical conclusions, depending on how it is applied and how what is observed is interpreted. What may be logical to one may be totally illogical to another. Some believe some scientists actually have too much faith in the math they use to come to some of their conclusions, somewhat like other folks consider Biblicalists as having too much faith in the credibility of the Biblical record, regardless of the archeological discoveries, the fulfilled prophecies and other evidence some of us fundamentalists use to support it.
This is exactly why a theory based only on the math is only very interesting. It wasn't until 1919 and the first tests of general relativity that Einstein's fame blossemed. Once the math has proved it's predictive powers over and over then scientists start to put a great deal of "faith" in it.
You have objected to things which have been shown to be true about the universe. They have been described in terms of math to you but you seem to have missed the point that what the math says turns out to be the case in the real world around us. The universe is NOT as you think it is. This isn't something conjectured from math; it is what is.
mathmatic calculations which may appear to debunk ID and consider math calculations and other science experiments to be too illogical
You are probably refering to various probability calculations put forward in support of ID. Those arguments are put forward in terms of math themselves. They are, as math, shown to be wrong. The ID'ists formulation of their arguments are, AS THEY STATE THEM, mathematically wrong.
When folks get into debates on things like the outside of, properties of space, the before the BB and things like that, often some conclusions of some are considered totally illogical and unreasonable, no matter how the math is applied.
I haven't noticed that anyone has applied any math to this (other than the speculative, untested math of string theory and the like). The questions you voice here are, as yet, unanswered.
Reasonable and Sensible relate as to definiton. My dictionary relates them, crossreferencing both reasonable and sensible, though not number one on the list of definitions.
As noted, the Universe is observed to simply NOT conform to what you think is reasonable and sensible. Once that is observed it has nothing to do with the math or logic. It is as it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2006 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 118 (306389)
04-25-2006 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
04-24-2006 11:15 PM


Re: What Is Logical?
quote:
1. Logic is closely related to reason/reasonable/reasoning. Math can be tricky and produce unreasonable/illogical conclusions, depending on how it is applied and how what is observed is interpreted. What may be logical to one may be totally illogical to another. Some believe some scientists actually have too much faith in the math they use to come to some of their conclusions, somewhat like other folks consider Biblicalists as having too much faith in the credibility of the Biblical record, regardless of the archeological discoveries, the fulfilled prophecies and other evidence some of us fundamentalists use to support it.
This is grossly wrong. Mathematics is MORE logical than our ideas of what is "reasonable". Even most rational thinking is less logical than mathematics.
The scientists have a huge record of success.
The Biblicists on the other hand have a habit of misrepresenting the state of the evidence as you do. Much of the Bible is unconfirmed or even contradicted by the archaeological evidence. There is no good record of fulfilled prophecies as we have seen on this group.
In fact Biblicists place too much faith in themselves - placing their uninformed opinions above those of people who have put huge amounts of work into understanding the fields of knowledge under discussion. This particular argument is just another example of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2006 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 73 of 118 (306420)
04-25-2006 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
04-24-2006 11:15 PM


Re: What Is Logical?
Though mathmatic calculations may produce some logical conclusions, depending on how it is applied, logic is not math. Logic, relative to math, depends on how reasonable the conclusions are because logic is reasoning.
Strangely, if you study formal logic, you'd think you were studying maths. It actually turns out you basically are. The two are are intertwined. I get the impression that you are using logic to mean informal logic.
Its not what we think is logical that matters, it is what can be formally shown to be logical that matters.
Of course, if you can show me a piece of mathematics that does not logically follow from the premises/variables thrown at it (ie, is not logical), I might be willing to concede some points to you.
This has the hallmarks of becoming a thread not about Hovind but about logic and maths. I advise that now we have had our say on the matter, we steer clear or start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2006 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2006 7:52 AM Modulous has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 118 (306429)
04-25-2006 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Modulous
04-25-2006 6:06 AM


Re: What Is Logical?
quote:
Strangely, if you study formal logic, you'd think you were studying maths.
When I studied formal logic I WAS studying maths. It was a School of Mathematics course, offered in the School of Mathematics building with a School of Mathematics lecturer taken as part of my degree in Mathematics and Computer Science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2006 6:06 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 118 (306461)
04-25-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by inkorrekt
04-24-2006 9:32 PM


Re: I have arrived...
He is making many in academics to self examine their own positions.
I'll bite. Which academics examined their own positions as a result of Hovind? What did he say or do to cause them to do this?

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by inkorrekt, posted 04-24-2006 9:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024